ys he Tye alial | Succession; 


ie) 5 


mitts ey VICKSBURG, it 


D 
$a 
ee i 


s 


ae 


Tue following sermons were written and preached more 
than a year ago in the discharge of parochial duty, and with- 
out any expectation or intention of their publication. They 
make no pretensions to literary merit and no such distinction 
is claimed for them. Composed literally “currente ealamo,” 


they are given to the public, just as they were preached, with 


the exception of two or three additional quotations in the first 
of the series, the notes and the appendix. 
The writer has no expectation that these discourses will 


“prove palatable to the great majority in this country “ who call 
themselves Christians.” Yet he is not without hope that their 


facts, statements and arguments, if duly weighed, will lead 


_ to further examination on the part of those who are concerned 


he le 
“to know the truth.” “And if for necessary truth’s sake only, 
any man will be offended, nay take, nay snatch at that offence 


which is not given, I know no defence for that. "Tis truth | 
and I must tell it; ’tis the Gospel, and I must preach it. And 


far safer it is . duis case to bear anger trom men than a woe 
from God.” | at 


Columbia, July 1, 1843. 


a 


SERMON 1. 


“AND HE IS THE HEAD OF THE BODY, THE CHURCH.” 
¢ Corossrans, i. 18. 


‘Sr. Pavt, the apostle, in his epistle to the Colossians after 
the salutations with which he commonly begins his letters, pro- 
ceeds to speak of the great power and dignity of the Pence 
He enlarges on this topic for the purpose, probably, of strength- 
ening the confidence and hope of the christians at Colosse in the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and of encouraging them to “ fight the good 
fight of faith.” By declaring in the most ample terms Christ’s 
exalted power and dignity, he would raise them above the fear 
of trial and. persecution in this life, to which they were constantly 
exposed, and would inspire them with a trust in the Saviour, 


ae 
that would disarm even death of his terrors, For, whom could 


put, 


they reasonably dread, when so much power was engaged in 
their behalf and for eis protection? “For by him,” says the 
apostle, “were all things created, that are in Heaven, and’ that 
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or 
dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things. were ented 
by him, and for him; And he is. before all things, and by him 
all things consist ; ad he is the head:of the body, the church ; 


“who is the ena the first born from the dead; that in all 


things, he might have the pre-eminence.’”* 


Under the Be taco and safe-guard of such a friend, the saints 
at Colosse, might well rise superior to all the discouragements 
and difficulties which encompassed them in their journey 
through this weary world, and look forward with composure 
to the approach of that inevitable hour, when they must sink 
into the grave under the stroke of death. 

We would do well, brethren, to remember that the same mercy 
embraces. us, that the same power is engaged for our protection, — 
that the sompgepscions edeemer is our unfailing friend, and 

< Pak * Col. i. 16-18 


“ oF 
y. 


6 


that in reliance upon him we are authorized to cherish the same 
- blessed hopes for time and for eternity. 


The first thing that strikes us, as worthy: of observation in 
the text, is the singular terms in which the apostle speaks of 
the Church. It is called a body—a body of oviach Christ is 
the head. 

The head is the scat of all those mental perceptions which 
enable us to.exercise our judgment, and by which the actions 
of the body are controlled and directed. So the Lord Jesus 
Christ being head of, the church is the source of all wisdom, 
power and dignity 1 init. ‘The meaning of the Apostle’s meta- 
phor, we conceive, to be fully cleared by this brief and simple 
explanation. Perhaps many points of resemblance might be 
sought out, yet they would probably be of a. fanciful character 
anc tend little to edification. ; 


cat _.» As the church is here and elsewhere in Scrip- 
nity of ‘ 


the Primitive ture expressly called a bady,* we are at once and 


eons $i necessarily reminded of the unity which should 


distinguish it in faith and practice. As the members of the 
natural body are united together and to the head, by the veins, 


arteries, and nerves, so the members of the church are united 


with: one another and to Christ the head, by the spirit, faith, 
love, sacraments, word and ministry. “here is one faith, and 


one baptism,” saith the apostle, in the very same connexion, in ~ 


which he declares that, “there is one body.” t 

It must be clear even to slight reflection, that in the first pro- 
mulgation of the gospel and in the gathering together of the 
church, believers were perfectly united in the profession of the 
same faith and in submission to the same ordinances. The cir- 
cumstances by which the first converts to christianity were sur- 
rounded, measurably compelled: them to union: and that they 
were so united is manifestly set forth in the declaration that 
“they continued steadfastly in the Apostle’ s doctrine and feilow- 
ship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.”{ It was the 
prayer of our blessed Saviour, and among the last which he, as 
man, addressed to. the Fades concerning his disciples, that 
“they all.might be one.”§ And it adds to “the affecting interest 


of this prayer, to consider, that the divine Redeemer seems to— 


* 1 CorjeL7. Eph. i..23: ive 16. + Eph. iy. 4, 5. | 
we + Acts i..42 § St. John xvii. 20, 21. 
op vi Gye 
ea.) 4 
» a 4 ; 


® 


yr? 


8 | 


d 


a ) 


regard the unity of his chatets, as a necessary ‘evidence to the 
world that the Father had sent Ris. “Neither pray I for these 
alone; but for them also which shall believe: on me through 
their word; ‘hat they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in 
me, and I ‘a thee, that they also id be one in us: that the 
world may believe that thou hast sent me.”* 

“That they all may be one”—one'in love—one in faith—one 
in practice—one in hope. his oneness of the christian church 
continued with but little interruption, until the perilous and puri- 
fying times ‘of persecution ceased and. believers began to exer- 
cise themselves about questions, which in their discussion, 


ina of ministering grace to those who heard, tended ae 


trifes and divisions, and the evil works which usually attend 
Hecd contentions. 
_ Divisions of the christian name fave at Napethe Presont divie 
so multiplied that, in our day, it seems that the ‘ions: 
question is Pacis made, whether such things are allowable 


.under the law of Christ. It appears to be taken for granted, 


that men will differ in their religious views—that differences are 


‘. inevitable from the very constitution of men—that they will 


have their preferences, and that these preferences, no matter 
upon what grounds they may be entertained, may be safely 


el a to the extent of attaching oneself to any society what- 


“ee that professes to be christian. In short, there seems to be 
a very widely diffused persuasion in the Pe mind; that one: 


denomination of professed christianity is, as to’ auhore about 
-as good as another. Hence we hear of many different associa- 


tions styled churches—the deluded followers of Joe Smith, the 
Mormon prophet, and others equally ignorant and fanatical— 
appropriating to themselves this venerable and once venerated 
appellation. Hence it has come to pass that the 
exercise of a salutary discipline has almost ceased 
among the professed followers of Christ,-it being 
found impossible to prevent the reception, to what are called 
church privileges, of those repelled, rejected or expelled by some 
association calling itself christian, and hence the chief aim of the 
‘various sects of the age, seems to be, to gain influence and 
power, by adding to oe numerical Stutneth, rather than to 
eae true piety and godliness among men. 

1 any serious and reflecting person, however, really think 


Discipline 
impracticable. 


ll Fe ee RS * St. John xvii. 20, 21. " 
' a2 ot .4 
be ie ve 
P ae 4 
os % 


a? 


8 

that the various bodies of men, who are known under the name 
of churches of Christ, are Pane authorized to act in.his name, 
and impart to others authority to administer the sacraments of 
his religion? “Especially can they so think, when they perceive 
the itactieal results to which such opinions lead in the countless 
divisions into which the professed followers of Christ are now 
scattered ? in the bitterness and rancour which opposing sects 
éxhibit towards each other? 

Bart¥ Spirit: Without the introduction of some restraining prin- 
must’ be res- ciple.to counteract this general disposition among 
aoe, men of the present day to separate into parties, it 
must be too evident to need proof, that every thing like unity 
among christians, will be at an end. The only bond to draw 
men together in ecclesiastical associations will then be inclina- 
tion and interest-or aécidental circumstances growing out of the 
intercourse of social life. And when these cease to operate or to 
have influence, new divisions must ensue from a change of cir- 
cumstances. or, of relations in an ever varying and changing 
world, until every distinctive feature of the christian system and 
of the church, one after another, shall pass away and the whole 
- be divested ay that divine Bilis which alone can and ought 
to give it sanction and weight with men. Indeed if these sepa- 
rations into distinct bodies or communities be allowable, there 
seems to be no good reason why every man should not act for 
himself and family in the affairs of religion, without the inter- 
vention or aid of any ministry whatever. And certainly those 
who at this day have discarded all authority in the church, act 
consistently in'administering the rites of religion at all times, in 
all places, and to all persons who ask for them, without reference 
-to any rule, law or custom upon. the subject. ‘They act consis- 
tently, we say, with their avowed principles. Whether these 
principles be in accordance with the revealed will of God, as 
_ interpreted by the practice of the prunitive church, is another 
and very different matter. 

. An idea seems to prevail quite extensively that 
christianity in its doctrines and forms is suscepti- 
ble of improvement like the arts and sciences, and 
that new’ discoveries are to reward Investigation into it, as in- 
other things. Hence old fashioned views of religion—such as 
teaching children the catechism, and training them to the habit- 


The «old 
paths” forsaken. 


9 


ual practice of devotion and other christian duties, are not only 


- rejected but actually ridiculed as savouring of earthliness, and 
the self-constituted reformers of the age set forth their own pecu- 


- 


liar sentiments with all the positive confidence and directness 
of assertion which attach to the claim of infallibility. There is 
truth in the maxim which says that extremes meet, and those 
who first set. out with a denial of all authority’ are presently 
found claiming all ‘authority for themselves. 


This is strikingly shown in the movements of a 
Campbellites 


| modern: sect, called by themselves Reformers, but have failed to 


better known among us under the appellation of see with 
Campbellites. And here I beg to ‘be understood “~ 

not as mentioning names reproachfully, but simply for the sake 
of illustration. Among those, as well as among others to whom 
I shall have occasion to refer in this discourse, I am free to de- 
clare, and I take pleasure in saying, that I believe there. are 


many humble, pious and sincere believers, “who through faith 


and patience are striving to inherit the promises.”* 

One of the characteristics of the sect, already named, is the 
rejection of all creeds and the avowed Ms aaah of. the New Tes- 
tament in their place, as the only and all-sufficient standard 
of faith and } practice. If, say they, Creeds are contrary to the 
New Testament , they are wrong and ought :to. be rejected. If 


they. are in accordance with it, they are at least unnecessary and 


may be injurious. There is APS TSI in this reasoning—full 


¢ as much as that which decided the fate of the famous library 
_ of Alexandria,—but far more sophistry concealed under an exte- 


rior of much candor and fairness.. The word creed, means 
what? undoubtedly, belief. And it matters not in principle 
whether it consist of one article or twenty. Now when we 


~ come to ask these people who have undertaken to reform chris- 


tianity, or rather the church, what they believe to be meant by 
christian baptism, they unhesitatingly declare, that it 1s emzer- 


_ sion in water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: + 


* Heb. vin, E2, 
et The form of words in baptizing is not the same with all the preachers or pro- 
claimers among these people. Someuse’the common form, «I baptize thee, in the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Others of them say 
** By the authority of the Messiah I baptize thee for the remission of sins”—and 
some here add, «In the name of the Father, &c.” Others again “1 baptize thee 
* into the name of J esus for the remjssion of sins, by : 


od a .~ 2 


5 


= te 


10 


and that no affusion, pouring or sprinkling of water, can be pro- 
perly regarded as baptism. Consequently all persons who have 
been baptized in any other way than by immersion, they con- 
sider as yet-without the pale of the church and strangers to the 
covenants of promise. And their practice accords herewith ; for 
no person can or will be received into what they are pleased to 
style the kingdom of Heaven or of Christ, without ag ol to 
be immersed. ' 

_ Thus we see then, that while they profess to ciel all creeds, 
they nevertheless’ abe io dee maintain—and right they are for 
doing this—that interpretation of the language of scripture which 
they believe to be the truth of God: and, consequently do, in 
.practice, uphold the very thing which they condemn in others. 
For a creed was never intended to express any thing more, than 


-what was conceived to be the meaning of holy'scripture. It‘ is 


the-purpose of the creed to express in as brief a form as possible 
the leading facts and main doctrines of the christian religion, 


-and so far aettivine the effect, as is alledged, of separating 


men into parties, just the contrary object is aimed at, and just 
the opposite result, for the most part, obtained by 

eke their use. No*man, who believes in the divine 
authority of the New ‘Testament, will object to a 

single article of what is called the Apostles’ Creed. Much of it 
is*in the very. language of scripture,* and that which is not, is 
nevertheless so plainly deducible from it, that no intelligent per- 
son will deny that it is built upon the express authority of God’s 


holy word. .No really sound objection therefore can be urged 


against its use. On the other hand, the many valuable purposes 


‘which it serves by presenting a concise summary of the Chris- 


tian faith, and forming a bond of union among the followers © 


of Christ, will always vindicate the wisdom of retaining it among 
our forms of public worship. The precise period of time at which 


this ereed, venerable for-its antiquity, was composed, is not 


known swith certainty.. No doubt it was very near to the apos- 
(les’ times, though we’ cannot assert that it belongs to the very 
age in aurea they lived and preached. It is’as near a tran- 
seript of what they taught, very briefly expressed, as can well 


be conceived. Indeed some learned men have given it as their 


i - 


: * See 1 Cor. xv 


Til 

opinion that this creed was formed as an abstract from the apos- 
tolic writings, and intended as far as possible to supply the want 
of the Bacied books among people who had not the opportunity 
to read them, as likewise to furnish an outline, to ignorant peo- 
ple, incapable of reading, of what thifigs they were required to 
believe in order to their becoming christians. Purposes which 
the creed is admirably adapied to answer, as any one may be 
easily convinced of, who undertakes to teach the unlearned the 
main doctrines of revelation and their own’corresponding duties. 
But one of the chief and among the most excellent purposes 
which the creed answers, especially by its:introduction into the 
worship of the congregation is the preservation of unity, among 

the members of the body. It is thus that we are/all enabled to 
“speak the same thing,” and “be perfectly joined together,” | 

the apostle enjoins, “in the same mind and the same hapeiing 
It is thus we confess Christ “before men,” profess “the faith 
once delivered to the saints,”} and | preclude all est occasion for 

divisions. | AS ape 4 

It is thus too, that liberty of conscience is F scoied Not that 
sort of liberty, which amounts to free thinking, which spurns 
all restrictions and limitations upon the reason and judgment, 
which puts at defiance all law and ‘authority, and sets up its 
own dictum as the infallible truth of God. This is licentious- 
néss and not liberty. This is that wild spirit of insubordina- 
tion, which under the name of freedom has never failed to ex- 
ercise an iron despotism over the minds of men, wherever and 
~ iwhenever an opportunity was presented. Of .this, the past his- 
tory of the world has furnished abundant and striking exam- 
- ples, and it is in truth the real foundation of nearly all the 
'. systems which Sectarianism has. introduced, defended and es-_ 
tablished. | | ‘ . 
The Apostles’ and Nicene creeds contain an outline: of the 
main facts and doctrines of the Gospel. They deal with gene- 
ral principles ;t they set forth not a single peculiarity, except as 
itsmay distinguish christianity from all ether religions ; nor do 
they enunciate a single fact, or declare a single doctrine in which. 
the vast majority, if not all christians, do not agree. And hére 
is a leading point of difference between the Protestant Episcopal 


- * 1 Cor. #10.. f-SteJude, 3. 
+ These as applied in practice are extended and explained in the Worship, offi- 
ces, &c. of the church. p 


, ) | ¥ 


2 


12> 


Church and the various dissenting bodies around her. She re- 
quires the reception only of that which was confessedly ac- 

knowledged in the primitive church as the chris-_ 

Difference be- 

tween the Epis: tian faith—-as of universal belief and no less uni- 
copal Church versal practice. The Nicene creed. was put forth 
aut others. 

as embodying the sense and judgment of the 
aiid of Christ, as early as the year 325 (A. D.) and in con- 
demnation of the Arian heresy which then began to disturb the 
unity of the body. , Whatever can be shown to be of undoubted 
belief and practice, among the whole body of believers previous 
to' that time, we hold to be obligatory upon us at this day, as 
members of be Catholic Church of Christ. We call on no man 
to subscribe to any thing peculiar and distinct from what was | 
thus believed and practised, in order to his becoming a chris- 
tian. ‘The demand made is, “ dost thou believe all the articles 
of the. christian faith as contained in the apostle’s creed?” and 
upon the affirmative profession thus made, we baptize in the 
name of the blessed and adorable Trinity, and receive the sub- 
ject into the visible church, as a member of Christ’s body. Not 
so with the» self-styled Reformat this age, who insist upon 
immersion as indispensable to admission into the visible fold of 
Christ. Not so with Presbyterians, who set forth in their “Con- 
_ fession of Faith,” that “angels and men, predestinated and fore- 
ordained are particularly ne epee bly designed—that the 
righteous are chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of God’s 
mere free grace and love, without any fonda tate of faith or good 
works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in 
the creature, as conditions, or causes cane him thereunto; 
and all to the praise of his glorious grace”—and that it hath 
pleased God, “for the glory of his sovereign power over his 
‘creatures, to pass by the rest of mankind, and ordain them to 
dishonor and wrath for their sins to the praise of his glorious 
justice” +—Not so with Methodists, who substitute internal per- 
stiasions, which’ they call the assurance of faith, or the witness 
of God’s spirit, for that holiness of life, that inward purity. and 
’ moral rectitude; which are the proper evidence of conversion— 
of renovation—of an acceptable state with God. Not so with 
Papists, who demand: unqualified submission to the decrees of 


* Prayer Book. Office of Baptism. 
t Confession of Faith; article or ch. ii. of God’s eternal decrees—Phila. Ed. 1821. 


1B 

the council of Trent in the 16th century, as an indispensable 
condition of salvation. Thus the theological opinions of men 
are attempted to be bound‘on the consciences of mankind ‘as 
dogmas of faith, and the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us 
free, virtually destiovedlt 

Goneniay to all these and many others too numerous to be ° 
named, the Holy Catholic Church of Christ teaches as articles 
of faith those things only which are plainly. delivered in the: 
written word of Christ and his apostles, and about the truth 
of which there never was any doubt among the faithful. And 
now let me ask, is hot this reasonable? isnot this safe? is it not 
consistent with the charity of the gospel? If my fellow man 
professes his conviction of the truth of what the apostles taught, 
why must I impose on him new and additional terms of com- 
munion or fellowship which they never required? Why must 
my interpretation of scripture be taken as correct and his con- 
demned? or why his received, and mine rejected? Who is to 
decide between us, if we chance to disagree? a thing very likely 
to happen. We both appeal to the written word, who is to be 
umpire between us? There is: no decision to be had in such a 
case, without an appeal to the authority of the church ; without 
reverting to primitive christianity, and that which has received 
the sanction of all, every where and from the beginning to the 
council of Nice, A. D. 325—(down to which period it is acknow- 
ledged on all hands, the faith was kept pure and unadulterated 
_ by the great body of believers in every part of the world—) and _ 
this must be regarded as of apostolical authority. Further 
than this we need not go, to be assured of our fellowship with 
the apostles, and through the sacraments of the Church which 
they established, of our union to Christ, the living head. 

I have rguBtie it the more necessary to dwell’ — yo attitude 
on this part of the subject, because of the misap- of the Church 

tuwards others. 

prehension and prejudice, not to say, misrepresen- 
tation, which I know to abound in the community, respecting 
the church, and the position which she’ occupies towards: the 
various glisions professions ¢ around . ust ‘wThe church utters no 
denuciations against others, who throtigh. faith and repentance, 
are striving, however Aided in some things, after the crown 
of life. She takes her stand on general principles, whichmay — 
be known and read of all men and in the setting forth of these, 


y 


14: 


the plainness and simplicity of her language are equalled only 
by its modesty—by the carefulness with which she has guarded 
her formularies from the expression of a harsh and uncharitable 
judgment on the faith and practice of others. 

Are we asked what is the church? The xix article re- 
plies: “'The visible Church .of Christ, is a congregation of 
faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, 


~ and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s 


ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite 
to the same. 

Is the demand made, who are authorized to minister the 
word and. sacraments of Christ's religion? ‘The preface ‘to 


‘the ordinal furnishes the answer—thus:, “It is evident unto 
all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, 


that from the Apostles’ time, there have been these orders of 
ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and», Deacons: 


which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, 
that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he 
were first called, tried and examined, and known to have such 


qualities as are requisite for the same; and-also by public 
prayer, with imposition of hands, was approved and admitted 
thereunto by lawful authority. And therefore to the intent 
that these orders may be continued, and reverently used and 
esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted or taken 
to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church, or 
suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be 
called, tried, examined and admitted thereunto, according to 
the form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal consecra- 
tion or ordination.” It will be perceived from the foregoing 
that the Church undertakes. to declare who shall be accounted 
lawful ministers in her own communion. She raises not the 
question, nor does she say one word about the authority of 
those ‘who execute the’ functions of ‘religion’ among others, 
She judges them not; to their-own master they stand or fall 


and to him they must give account. If others think their, 


authority called in question by the declaration which ‘she sets 
forth. that “it is evident’ to‘all men, diligently reading Holy 
Scripture and ancient :authors, that from the Apostles’ time 
there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church, 


Bishops, Priests and Deaconis,” she is not to blame for it. It 


> 


~% pa ey ay 
e734 - =? me , = 


15 


is their own fault that they have not sought for that authority 
from the source and in the way which she declares to be lawful, 
It is her business to see that the’ application of the general 
principle which she asserts, be made to those who seek to min- 
ister in her congregations. And this is all that;she undertakes 
to do, leaving others to pursue the course which they believe to 


be warranted by the, word of God and the practice of the 


Church of Christ. .It is however not a little re- . 
yell : The general 

markable that the correctness of the general prin-. principle of the 

ciple stated by the church, is admitted by the Church admit- 


| = ted by com- 
large’ majority of those who have left her pale Sa 


‘and set up separate communions for themselves. 


‘Thus Calvin, the founder of Presbyterianism says, “If they 
will give us he an hierarchy, in which the Bishops have such 
a pre-eminence as that. they do not refuse to be subject unto 
Christ, I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, 


if any such there be, who will not reverence it, and submit 


themselves to tt with a utmost obedience.” * 


Thus Martin Luther: “I allow that each state ought to 
have one Bishop of its own by divine right; which I show 


from Paul, saying ‘ forethis cause left I thee in Crete’ tf. , 


Thus Melancthon: “I would to God it lay in me to restore 
the government of Bishops. For I see what manner of church 
we shall have, the ecclesiastical polity ‘being dissolved. I do 
see that héterfter will grow up in the euurch a greater tyranny 
than there ever was before.” t- | 

Thus Beza,.the successor of Calvin: “In my writings touch- 
ing church government, I ever impugned the Romish hierarchy 


but never intended to touch or impugn the ecclesiastical polity 
of the Church of England.” § 


The plea urged for establishing a government 
Plea of neces- 
of Presbyters contrary to what was the known ity. 
order of the church was’ necessity. The refor- 
mation on the continent was catried forward by the lower 
orders of the clergy; that is by the Presbyters and Deacons, 
in conjunction with the people. The Bishops refused to unite 
with them except in a very few instances. In England on 


* Word for the church p; 51, Joannes Cabrini Trac. Theo. omnes p. 69. 
Ibid. Resolutions. ' + Ibid. Apology, &c. p. 395. 
{bid. p- 52, Letter to Arclfy Whitgiit , , 


x 


16 


the’ contrary, the ministry, including Bishops, Priests and Dea- 


cons, reformed’ with the people; and hence there existed no 


necessity and no reason to change the order of government by 
Bishops, and consequently no alteration, was then, or fora pong 
time after, attempted. ’ 

But what does this plea of necessity unavoidably suppose? 


, Unquestionably, a departure from some established rule and 


order, otherwise there could be no reason or sense at all, in 


‘such plea.’ It must be evident then beyond cavil, that thieh 


the necessity ceases, the practice which the plea of necessity 
is introduced to justify, ought to cease also. _ And it is on. this 


ground precisely that we urge all those who practise Presby- 


terian ordination,” to cease an irregularity, (to use the softest 
term,) which the state of the Christian world no longer ren- 
ders necessary, if it ever did, and return’to the application of 
the rule which, beyond all doubt, vhonkess in the primitive and 
apostolic ehusen! ¥ 

‘The Church ’ Dut. to justify this sephiatiin and uphold the 
independent of Presbyterial form of Church government, it is 
eat sometimes asserted that the orders of the Epis- 
copal ‘Church are defective or vitiated because derived through 
a corrupt channel—that is, the Romish Church. If this aihect 
tion avails any thing, it-is as destructive of the validity of 
Presbyterian orders, as it is of Episcopal ordination. For from 


- whom did the Pasby ters that, founded the Presbyterian form 


of church government in the 16th century, derive their autho- — 


" rity?” Undoubtedly from the Church of Rome, and whatever 


authority they claimed and exercised, without question flowed 

through that channel. And can it be that this same fountain — 
sent forth waters both sweet and bitter at the same time—that 
more mysterious than Elisha’s salt at Jericho, Presbyterian 
orders came forth from it pure’and unadulterated, while Epis- 
copacy was tainted and corrupted? You. perceive then ‘that 
the objection, if of any weight, is fatal to those who niake it. 
But it is alledged that the Episcopacy of the English Church, 
arid of course that of the American branch, comes ‘through the 
Roman pontiffs or popes—and the Pope being the’ man of sin, 


* The, Methodists of course included, for they have nothing but Huai ea 
ordination to plead, if they’can make good their’ claim even to that. Neither 
ae nor Coke was a Bishop. ; 


RY 


, 


”~ 


17 . 


He can of course transmit no power ‘or authority i in the Church 
of Christ. We see not that this shifting of ground, helps along 
with the difficulty. For it is not to he conceived how, if the 
connexion which Bishops maintained with the Roman Pope 
vitiated or abrogated their authority, the power of Presbyters 
was not annulled, because of the same connexion. 

. That the popes of Rome, aided by the secular power, did 
usurp and exercise an’ ecclesiastical domination in Great Bri- 
tain, we are not so ignorant of history as td dény. That that 
domination vitiated or destroyed the orders of the English 


Church we do most emphatically deny; and to ‘sustain that 


denial we appeal both to facts and argument. Much of the mis- | 
apprehension and: consequent misrepresentation which abound 
upon this subject, are referable to the ignorance which pre- 
vails* respecting the original establishment of Christianity in 
the British Islands, and: the subsequent introduction of Roman- 
ism.. We deem the subject of importance and interest enough, 
to merit particular attention; and although our observations 
must at present be restricted ig the limits usually appropriated 
toa single: discourse, yet will they be, we trust, amply sufficient 
to lead to a correct a ties capaelins of the question before us. 
It is matter of history, well authenticated, that 


Augustin the monk came to. Britain from Greg- © Augustin not 
the founder of 


“ory of Rome, on a mission to the Anglo Saxons {the British Ch. 


_in the year 590. It is equally well known that 
“some time after his arrival he met in’ conference seven Bishops 
already established in their sees in Britain and exercising Epis- 


- copal authority over the churches under their care. The ques- 


tion at once arises, by whom was christianity planted in Bri- 
tain, and: whence ail these Bishops derive consecration? The 
answer to these questions will show what connexion the an-*° 
cient British Church had with the Roman see. 

And first we have witnesses as to the fact that christianity 
existed in Britain long before the arrival of Augustin. 

& Tertullian’ (A. D. sr gee pithy. “some countries of the 


— * Adversis J udeeos aT Hishéntawtim omnes termini, et Galliarum diverse 
nationes, et Britannorum inaccessa Romani loca, Christo vero subdita.” 

—Orat. Tom 1. p. 575. ** Kae yap at Boeravexae vyoot at rns Sadarrns exros Ketpevat, Kal 
sv avrw ovoa tw Qxeavw one Ovvapews Tov Pwparos nsOovro. &C. 


3 


* hS 
Britons which proved inaccessible to the Romans _are’ subject 
to Christ.” | 

Origen (A. D. 230) says, “ When did Britain before the com- 
ing of Christ unite in the worship of one God.” — . 

Chrysostom (A. D, 400) “The British Islands, situated be- 
yond our sea, and lying in the very ocean have felt the power 
of the wel for even there eninge are built and altars 
erected.” "his 

You will remember that Augustin came to England A. D. 
590. These testimonies show conclusively that christianity 
was preached and churches erected there long before he was 
born... 

2. We have a witness as to the time, when christianity was 
mtroduced into Britain. Gildas a Britain by birth A. D. 546, 
‘says it was in the year of our Lord 61—viz: in and about the 
date of St. Paul’s travels to, the west. Gildas after mentioning” 
the defeat of Boadicea, A. D. 61, adds, “in the meanwhile 
the sun of the Gospel fi rst enlightened ‘this island.” ) 

3. We have a,witness as to. the: persons by whom the gos- 
pel was’ there, preached. Eusebius (A. D. 270—340) speaking 
of the ttavels of the Apostles to propagate the faith, says some 
of them, “ passed over the ocean to the British isleattes Emb TOS 
nxahkovuevas Bostavixas vynoovs.”—Dem: Kv. L. 3, Cars 

4, We have witnesses.as .to. the specific. man. Clemens 
Romanus (A. D. 70) the intimate friend and, fellow laborer of 
St.Paul, says of him, that in preaching the gospel he went to 
the utmost bounds of the West, “env to tegua ts dusews,” ald 
expression denoting Spain, Gaul and Britain, but more par-. 
ticularly the last named region. 

Jerome (A, D. 329—420) speaking of St. Paul’s imprisonment 
. and subsequent journey into Spain, says, he went from ocean 
to ocean and preached the gospel in the Western parts. That 
‘in the Western parts he included Britain is evident from his 
_lettér to’ Marcella. Theodoret (A. D. 423—460) mentions the 
Britons among the nations converted by the apostles, and says 
that St. Paul, after his release from imprisonment went. to 
Spain, and fron thence carried the light of the gospel to other 
nations and brought salvation to the Islands that lie in the 
ocean. All writers whom I have consulted understand by this 


19 


expression, as used by the Fathers, the British Isles.* Theo- 


doret calls the British christians “ disciples of the Tentmaker” 
(St. Paul.) “These authorities are decisive as to. the establish- 
ment of christianity in Britain before the coming of Augustin 
in A. D. 590. The conclusion is irresistible from the testimony 
that the church was there planted by the Apostles, and most 
probably by St. Paul. “'The Bishop whom St. Paul is recorded 
to have appointed, was Aristobulus, who is mentioned in the 
Epistle to the Romans. By the appointment. of Bishops, 
Priests and Deacons, the form of church government was 
complete, and the British church, therefore, in a spiritual sense, 
was fully established. .And what results from this establish- 
ment of the British “church by St. Paul? This very interest- 
ing consequence, that the church of Britam was pitch Chen 
fully established before the church of Rome. -For older than. that 
Linus, the first Bishop of Bome, was appointed “ ®™* 


by the joint authority of St. Peter and St. Paul, in the year — 


of their martyrdom, and therefore after St. Paul’s return from 
Britain.” > i " 
“The British church” continues the same writer, was never 
theirs (the Romanists) but by usurpation. For though our 
Saxon ancestors were converted to christianity by Popish 
missionaries; yet at that very period, the British church main- 
taining herself in the unconquered parts: of the island, had sub- 
sisted from the days of her «first founder, St. Paul, and distin- 
guished herself not only by her opposition to the The old Brit- 
heresy of Pelagius, but to the corruptions of ish Cl’eh pure 
i in order, doc- 
Popery.”{ She had every thing necessary or trine and disci- 
essential to the being and perfection of a church phnegs | 
—doctrine, discipline and worship—dioceses, bishops, clergy, 


_ * It will be perceived that the foregoing quotations are, very brief, and in some 
“instances the substance of the witness’ testimony given without his precise words 


—which would have, if so furnished, to be arrayed in the dress of the.ancient Greek | 
or Latin. For the satisfaction of those who desire to settle the question of St. Paul’s , 


preaching the gospel in Great Britain, I would refer for full information to the 
_ Letters of Bishop Burgess of St. Dayid’s to his clergy, published in the 2d vol. of 
«the Churchman Armed against the errors of the Time.” The point is there set- 
tled, it seers to me, beyond controversy. > ‘ 

+ Bishop Burgess. ; 

“{ The following passage from a letter of Bishop Davies to Archbishop Parker, 
contains a very interesting record of the sentiments of the British church. ‘ One 
notable story was in the chronicle; “howe, after the Saxons conquered, contynew- 


~ 


20 


- 
sacraments, rites, customs, church edifices and schools for the © 


instruction of her children.. Nor let it be supposed that there 
existed, in what may be called a rude and barbarous age, the 
mere.“ form of godliness” in these arrangements, without the 


manife station of its power in the principles and practice of the ° 
“members of the British Church. The following extract from 


a treatise still extant, of Fastidius, bishop of London, more 
than a hundred years Before the arrival of Augustin, idl show 
that the clergy of Britain not only understood. the genuine prin- 
ciples of the gospel, but that they also knew how to inculcate 
them, in practice. , 

ue S lt is the will of God, that ink ani should be holy, and 
apart from all stain of unrigbtsaieae so righteous, so mer- 


ciful, so pure, so unspotted by. the world, ‘so single-hearted, that - 


the heathen should find no fault in them, but say with, wonder, 


blessed is the nation whose God jis the Lord, and the people 
-. whom: he hath chosen for his inheritance. _We'xead in the 


Evangelist that one came to our Saviour, and asked him what 
he should do. to gain: eternal life, The answer he received 
was, If thou -wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 
Our Lord did not say, keep. faith aba For if faith is all that 
is required, it is overmuch to say that the commandments must 
be -kept.. But.far be it from me.that_I should suppose my Lord 
to have taught. any thing overmuch. Let this be said only-by 
those whose*sins have numbered them with the children of 
perdition. - 

‘“ Let no man then deceive or mislead his brother :*except a 
man is righteous, he hath not life; except he keep the com- 
mandments of Christ, he hath no part with him. A christian 


is one who shows mercy to all; «who is provoked by no wrong; 


who suffers not the poor in this: world to be oppressed; who 


all warre pees betta the Brittayns (then inhabitauntes of the realme) and 
the Saxons, the Brittayns beyng christians, ‘and. the Saxons pagan. .As occasion 
served, they sometymes treated of peace, and then mette together, and communed 
together, and dyd eate and drynk together, but after that by the meanes of Austen 


the Saxons became christians in such sort, as Austen had taught them, the Brittayns. 


wold not after that nether eate nor. drynk wyth them, nor yet salute them, bycause 
they corrupted wyth superstition, ymages and ydolatrie, the: true ee of Christ.” 
Churchman Armed, &c. p. 390. ° . 


relieves the wretched, succours the needy; who mourns with _ 
mourners, and feels the pain of another as his own; who is © 


21 
4 ‘ : ‘?,, 


moved to tears by the sight of another’s tears; whose house 
is open to all; whose table is spread for all the poor; whose 


‘good deeds all men know; whose wrongful dealing no man 


feels; who serves God day and night and ever meditates upon 
his precepts; who is made poor to the world, that he may be 
rich towards God; who is content to be inglorious among men, 
that he may appear glorious before God and. his angels; who 


has no deceit in his heart; whose soul is simple and unde- 


filed and his conscience faithful and, pure; whose whole mind 
rests on God; whose whole hope is fixed:on Christ, desiring 
heavenly ae rather than earthly, and leaving human things 


to lay hold on things divine.”* 


If the foregoing be a fair specimen of the teaching of the 
ancient *British church, we may well conclude that the. foun- 
dation of their eeaeeinctical establishment was laid by a wise 
master builder—that. “in doctrine they were incorrupt and 
held the mystery of faith ina pure conscience.” It was while 
the christians of Britain were “living in all godly quietness,” 
and animated doubtless by the. constraining love “of Christ, 
were pushing their missions into the Forder parts of the 
island for the conversion of the Picts and Scots, and into Ire- 
land, that that terrible invasion of the Saxons took place, which 
resulted in the conquest of the country, and well nigh the ruin 
of the British Church. 'The Britons abandoned by the Romans, 
presented but a feeble resistance to the veteran and disciplined 


* battalions of the Saxons led on by daring spirits and animated 


-by the hope of plunder. All the Eastern, Southern and mid- 


land districts were in a short time over-run and in possession 


of the invaders, and the unhappy Britons driven from their 


homes were forced to seek reftige in France or in the moun- 


tainous and inaccessible parts’ of Wales and Cornwall. Here 


history represents them as sternly maintaining for a long time 


‘their independence, and’ what is equally honourable to their - 


character, as faithfully adhering to the principles and practice 
of the faith which they had received from the founders of their 


' church... It. was in this condition about the year 590, that 


“Augustin found them. He had come on a mission from Gre- 


gory, Bishop of Rome,‘ to attempt the conversion of the Saxons, 


* Churton’s Early English Church p. 29, 30. 


22 


and well indeed had it been if he had confined his views and 
efforts to this single object, instead of attempting ‘as he did 
subsequently, to establish a spiritual supremacy alike un- 
known and repugnant to the. practice and feelings of the Bri-| 
_,° tish christians. Augustin and his company came 
| Wi oy Mae first to the court of king. Ethelbert at Canterbury, 
old British whose queen, Bertha, was'a christian, who had 
Church. ae ‘ d 
brought’ with her from France a Bishop by name 
Lindhard or Lithardus, as her ‘instructor in the faith of the 
Gospel. He had for many years previous to the arrival of 
Augustin, preached and administered the rites of our holy reli- 
sion in the church of St. Martin’s near to Canterbary, a vene- 
rable pile which yet survives, sacred alike for its antiquity 
and for its associations with the early establishment of chris- 
tianity in Britain. To the piety ‘and ‘hospitality of Liudhard, 
Augustin was indebted for his first night’s entertainment at 
Canterbury. ‘Within a little more than a year after this time, 
Augustin received consecration at the hands of Vigil, aren 
bishop of Arles, and Ethérius, bishop of Lyons in France, and 
returning to Canterbury, was imvested with the pall* from 


Gregory of Rome, as an Archbishop. . Here was the beginning” 


of that assumption of authority which the successors of Gre- 
sory, the Popes of Rome, have since claimed to exercise over 
the British church. - It ce never been pretended even, that 
Augustin received his spiritual authority as a Bishop, by" con- 
sect ation at the hands of, Gregory. All history testifies that he 
was consecrated by the Archbishop’ ‘of “Arles, a see at that time 
independent of Rome, and consequently the line of succession 
among the English bishops if traced through the Archbishop 
of Canterbury conducts not to Rome, but to Arles, and thence 
to Lyons—thence to Smyrna, where Polycarp presided as 
Bishop and from him to St, John at eae: r 


* The pall (pallium) was sent by*the Bishops of Rome to the Metropolitans and 
other chief Bishops of the West, at or after their consecration, in token of their 
recognition of them, as lawfully invested with their office. Though it was for 
several ages only a sign of fraternal regard, and a pledge of intercommunion; it 
came at length, (when the honorary Primacy of the Bishop of Rome had gradually 
beén changed into a Supremacy of power,) to be regarded as a necessary prelimi- 
nary to the exercise of jurisdiction by a newly consecrated Bishop. 

+ The Churches in Asia, (of which Ephesus: ‘and Smyrna, the sees of St. nyt 
and St. Polycarp, wers the chief,) sent a mission to Gaul, about the middle of the 


; 


23; 


Aegan Even the public forms of religion, as» then in- 
Palais SORA troduced and established, were not taken from 
ee the Ro- the Mass-book, as the Romanists boast, and dis- 

senters ignorantly believe, but in the portions yet 
retained. in the book of Common prayer, were older than’ the 
beginning of the corrupt do¢étrine of the mass. Gregory, so 
far from requiring Augustin to observe the service used at 
Rome, expressly charges him to search diligently for what 
might be more edifying in other, churches, referring him espe- 
cially to the old church of Gaul which was closely united 
in faith and practice with the old. British or Welsh church. 
wey @ are not to love customs,” said hé, “on account of the 
_places from which they come; but let us love all places where 
good customs are observed, choage therefore from. every church 


-whatever ‘is pious, Malivibus and well-ordered; and when you’ 


have made a bundle a sdod rules, leave there for your best 
legacy to the English.” Neither did Gregory claim to exercise 
the powers which have been so’arrogantly- and without right 


‘or reason contended for as the prerogative of his successors. 


Fof in opposition to the pretensions ‘of the Bishop of Constan- 
‘tinople, he asserted’ that, “ whosoever claims the universal 
Eipiscopate, is the get: ntondh of Anti-Christ,” Ah! he little 
imagined that he was then uttering a sentiment, which in 
after ages. would apply with marvellous directness to his suc- 
cessors. For the popes of Rome to this day claim the uni- 
‘versal Episcopate, and so fall under the heavy condemnation 
~and-withering rebuke of their illustrious predecessor. 


Augustin had: hot long exercised his Episco- The Pope’s 
supremacy not 


pal authority’ in England, before he proposed 2¢' frst acknow- 


and through ' Ethelbert suceeded in™ bringing — ledged. 


‘the British Bishops to’a conference, In this interview the 


Archbishop of Cambria: (Wales,) seven bishops and a con- 
siderable number of other British clergy.were present. Au- 
gustin proposed to them to acknowledge the puthonty of the 


plea century, under Photinus, who pong Bishop of Lyons, and was succeeded 
by St. Ireneus. . This mission’established, if it did not found the Church in Gaul; 
and perpetuated in that country, not only.the Apostolic’ succession in the time 
of St. J ohn} but also the Asiatic Liturgy and usages 5 until the intimate connexion 
between Rome and Gaul, which was cemented by the Carlovingian dynasty in the 


+ 


8th and 9th centuries, enabled the pares to substitute gradually the Roman Liturgy 


and customs for the Gallican. 2 


x 


24 


Bishop of Rome over their branch of the Catholic Church,—to 
conform to the Romish custom of keeping Haster*—to use. the 
Romish forms and ceremonies in celebrating the rite of bap- 
tism and to join the Roman missionaries. in preaching the 
gospel to the Saxons. To these demands they returned a ° 
firm and decided negative, positively refusing to acknowledge 
Augustin. as_ their Meaishichon The answer. of Dunod the 
abbot of Bangor, clearly vindicates the independence of the 
British church, and shows that the idea of Roman supremacy 
was not tolerated for a moment. “We are bound,” said he, 
“to serve ‘the church of God, and the bishop of Rome, and 
every godly christian,’as far as keeping them in offices of love 
and charity: this service we are ready to pay; but more than 
this Ido not know to be due to him or any other. We have 
a primate of our own, who is to oversee us under God, and to 
keep us in the way, of Spiritual life.” 'This: answer given in 
the genuine spirit of catholic independence, fully confirms the 
truth of Sir Wm. Blackstone’s remark, that, “the ancient Bri- 
tish. church: by whomsoever.founded was a stranger to the 
Bishop of Rome. and his pretended authority.” “ Britain knew 
not that the message from Rome was the fore-runner of forcing’ 
away that independence, of. which the bare asking would not 
gain the surrender: and though from this time onward to the 
16th century, the Holy Catholic church. of Britain, fought inch 
by inch, for that, liberty wherewith Christ had made her. free, 
what could she do? ‘The student. of these times knows full 
well the feeble condition of the Britons invaded by the pagan. 
Saxons.” The slaughter of twelve hundred Ecclesiastics at 


one time on the borders of Wales by Ethilfrid, king of North- 


umberland, not without suspicion that, Augustin himself was. 
privy to the relentless massacre, le melancholy evidence, 


* << The British Church at this time kept their Easter-day on a Sunday: from 
the 14th to the 20th day of the paschal moon inclusive; whereas the Roman church 
kept it on the Sunday which fell between the 15th and 2ist. The rule of the 
Church laid @own:at the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, m mentioned in the preceding 
charter, was that Easter should be kebt on the first Sunday after the full moon next 
following the 2ist day of March. Sometold Churches of the East had kept it on 
the 14th day of the moon, which was the day of the Jews’ Passover, on whatever 
day of the week it fell. ‘The Britons seem to havé had this custom, which they sup- © 
posed to be observed in the churches founded by St. John in Asia; but after the Coun- 
cil of Nice, wishing to correct their practice, they had still begun one day too soon.” 
Cuurton’s “ Karly English Church, p. 44. New York edition. 


Q5 


of the hapless condition of the Britons. “The British church 
could not but be depressed when her sons suffered. What 
then coutp she do in this situation when, in addition to the 
attacks of the Saxon, the arm of the Italian’ church was 
stretched forth not to assist, but (as it finally turned out) to 
crush and enslave her loses any one say the British church 
could at least protest? Aye! and so she did, most man- 
fully and boldly. Her voice was heard, in the persons of 
her Bishops,. her blergy.” and her laity, protesting against 


a The following declaration and protest of the clergy of Berkshire, 1240, will 
prove that however the fire of christian liberty may have been smothered’ in that 
dark period of the world’s history, it was very far from “being extinct. «<The recs 
tors of churches in Berkshire, all and each, say thus: | 

First, that it is not lawful to contribute money to support a man ci ala the Em- 
peror; for though the pope has excommunicated him, he has not been convicted © 
or condemned as a heretic by any sentence of ‘the church. And if he has seized 
or invaded the estates of the’ church of Rome, still it is not lawful for the church 
_ to resist force by force. 

‘Secondly, that as the Roman church has its own estates,.the management of 
which belongs to the lord pope, so have other churches theirs, granted them by 
gift and allowance of pious kings, princes and noblemen; which - in no respect are 
liable toepay tax or-tribute to the church of Rome. i 

Thirdly, although the law says, all things belong to the prince, this does not 
mean that they are part of his property. and domain, but are under his care and 
charge; and in like manner tlie churches belong to the lord pope’ as to care and 
charge, not as to dominion and property. And when Christ said, “ Thow art 
Peter, and on this rock wilh I build my church,” he committed only the charge, 
and not the property, to Peter, as is plain from, the following words, . “« Pen atee. 
ever thou shalt bind and loose upon earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven:’ 
not whatsoever thou shalt exact on earth shall be exacted in heaven. 

Fourthly; inasmuch as it is plain from the authority of the Fathers, that the 
mcome of churches is appointed for certain uses, as for'the church, the. ministers ~ 
and the poor, it ought not to be turned to other uses but by. the authority. of the 
whole church. Least of all puekt. the goods of the ‘church td be taken to’maintain 
war against christians. . 

Fifthly, that the king and nobles of England, ie inheritarice and good custom, 
have the right of patronage over the churches of England; and the rectors, holding 
livings under their patronage, cannot admit a .custom hurtful to their pr operty 
without their leave. “ , 

Sixthly, that churches were’ endowed, that rectors. might afford hospitality to 
rich and poor according to their means; and if the intention of patrons is thus 
frustrated, they will not in future build ‘or found churches, or be willing to give 
away livings.» — 

Seventhly, that the pope promised, when he first asked for a contribution, 
never to repeat his demand: and that as a repeated act makes a custom, this 
second contribution will be drawn into an unusual and slavish precedent.” Chur- 
ton p. 319, 320. ; 


4 


~ 


26 

the usurpation of Rome, from its commencement in the 6th 
century up to its close in the 16th.” 
* “he British church produced a noble. array of divines from 
Dinoth (Dunod) of Bangor, to Cranmer of Canterbury who 
from time to time did all they could.to resist the uncanonical 
and anticatholic usurpation of her spiritual rights; but for cen- 
turies it was all in vain... They could only stave off the evil 
day for a time, and at length‘ about the end of the Norman 
conquest, the catholic church of Britain, planted by apostolic 
hands, was completely forced beneath the feet of her unatu- 
ral and ambitious sister, the church of Rome. With her reli- 
gion went her political glory. And methinks, the hot blood of _ 

virtuous indignation, must now crimson che cheek of Eng- 
land’s sons, when they look back to those times that saw their 
soil, like fe church, under the thraldom of an Italian Bishop! 
When their fonarchs, the 2d Henry and his son (out upon 
stich drivelling cowards!) disgraced their own and their couh- 
try’s name, the ‘first by baring his back to be scourged by the 
meek and ‘unassuming successor of the fisherman; and the 
last by eueely laying the crown of England at the footstool 


‘ of the pope’s legate.” 


“There was not, "however, this pusillanimous submission on 
‘the ‘part of the Spiritual sons of England.*, They never, (no, 
not from the days of St. Paul up to his»successors the’ English 


Bishops of this day) they neyer yet yielded up the mitre of 


eatholic independence into the hands of the usurping Romans. 
The church of Britain was forced, it is true, to bow her head 


' for.a time, but her heart was-as ‘unbending as the onarled oaks | 


of her own native forests.?? . 

* William of Corboil, a French priest, elevated to the see of Cua ae contrary 
to law and custom, and by intrigue, was the first ecclesiastic that attempted to betray 
the independence of the English church. Up to this time (1125) the pope had no 
jurisdiction in Piviand” The church was under a head of its own, governed by the 
king in temporal matters, and by the archbishop “of Canterbury 1 in spiritual. Wil- 
‘liam of Corboil made the primacy of England consist in acting as the pope’s deputy. 
The church and nation were far from quietly yielding to his measures. The writers 
of the time never speak of William of Corboil, without expressing contempt for 
his meanness; and his name became a standing jest in merry old England. ‘«‘ He 

ought’ not to be called William of Corboil,” says John Bromton, abbot of Jorval, 

‘but William of Turmoil.” «Truly I would speak his praises if I could,” says 
Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon, «but they are beyond expression for no man 
has yet discovered them.” . Churton p. 266, 268. 


27 


“Dinoth of Bangor is: witness—Bishop Daganus is a later 
witness, for he would not eat at the same table, no, nor in the 
same house with these Roman schismatics.* ‘The king and 
‘clergy of Northumberland are still later witnesses, for they 
treated with contempt, the papal mandate to restore his deposed 
Bishop, Wilfrid. And there was the giant arm of Wickliffe 
raised in. later days, and noble’ was the blow he struck. 
And when he died in’ 1384, he bade by his example his fol- 
lowers, the old catholics’ of Britain, the members of this church 
of the Ries God, never to. cease till their protestations termi- 
nated in action, and they had ejected that schismatic intruder 
who had placed. his foot on their shoresin 596. "They never 
~ did cease.t Wickliffe’s followers, known in history under the 
name of Lollards, kept up the protest which Dinoth, of Bangor 
had raised, and which each succeeding age found bold and 
faithful spirits to. prolong. The stake was prepared for them ; 
but in vain, for they burnt. at the stake, yet were true to the 
eatholic faith. .There is the bloody act of 1399, by which they 
were burnt, and the names of many of the nelle sufferers on 
whom ‘it bople effect: but it all would,not do. The flame lighted 
up Britain, it spread to Smithfield and added brightness to the 
death-light of Cranmer and his brother martyrs. It spread till 
it reached» the continent, and Luther abroad, as well as the 
eatholies in Britain (Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer) were nerved 
by the-spirit of. Wickliffe.’’ ' 

“But now came the time when the old, and oppressed chen 
of Britain was able, as she had all aitne been willing’, to eject 
the intruding and hence; schismatic church -of Rome. «Four 
centuries had witnessed her: struggles in. vindication. of reli- 
gious freedom, and now in the good providence of God the day 
came when the prophetic words of the dying Grostéte, were to 
receive their fulfilment, and the church of England “was set 


* «¢ Nam Daganus Episcopus ad nos veniens non solum cibum nobiscum, sed nec 
in eodem hospitio, quo vescebamur, sumere voluit.” Bede L. ii. c. 4. 

Tt Grostéte, Bishop of Lincoln, and: Sewel, archbishop of York, may be instanced 
among many other illustrious examples, of resistance to the claims of papal domi- : 
nation. The former,.in the close of his letter to the Pope, employs the following 
strong and emphatic language: ‘Since the commands I have received are so con- 
trary to the holiness of the Apostolic see, destructive to the souls of men, and against 
the catholic faith,—the very spirit of unity, the love of a son, and the obedience 
of a subject, command me to rebel.” Churton p. 329. 


28 


free fbi the Egyptian bondage” under which she groaned 
“by the edge of a blood-stained sword.” 

“The Bishop of Italy,” continues the eloquent divine* to 
whom I am indebted for many of the preceding observations, 
“the Bishop of Italy, called the Pope, had no more right in 
Great Britain than he had in these United States of America ; 
and he has about as ‘much right to spiritual supremacy in either, 
as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of Pennsylvania 
has in Italy.” 

“ When therefore the Bishop of Italy sent his messenger, Au- 
gustin, in the sixth century, to ask the catholic church in Bri- 
tain to submit to him, and this’ being indignantly refused, he 
in after days forced that submission and by intrigue and 
treachery usurped her rights, there was no more than. sheer 
justice returned, when the British church had the power, as 
she had in We 16th century, to eject the inttuder, sdul and 
body, and send the writ of ejectment by the hands of her law- 
ful Bishops Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer. And this she did 
orderly, legally, canonically, completely. Ah! the British 
church, never forgot the year 596—no, not when her temples 
were over-run with foreign priests, her altars served by alien 
hands and her property devoured by alien mouths. She never 
forgot that year, though ten centuries had rolled round, during 
which she could only express her remembrance by strong -pro- 
testations and ineffectual efforts. She never forgot that year; 
and’ when the 8th Henry, blotted out the pusillanimity of the 
2d. by ‘proclaiming through the legal voice of the realm, the 
independence of our motherland of the Bishop of Rome, me- 
thinks the shades of Dinoth, with ‘the other clergy ae met’ 
the monk Augustin in the 6th century, the shades of Wickliffe 
and his martyred followers in the 14th century, clustered 
around Cranmer and’ his Brothers of the 16th century, and 
watched with an English churchman’s interest, the royal sig- 
nature which cancelled forever, (God grant it be so!) the foul- 
est blot that ever stained England’s: cross, political or religious. 
From that period (the Reformation in the 16th century). the 
church of the living God—the church of St‘ Paul—the old 
British church, in her purity, in her zeal, faith and charity 


* Rev. Wm. H. Odenheimer, Rector of St. Peter’s Church, Philadelphia. 


29 

has been the boast and blessing of the land of our fathers. 
_ May the fires of Smithfield be again kindled and her children, 
to aman, burn and die at the stake, before they yield up the 
trust of catholic independence and_ suffer the disgrace of 
England’s church to be: told in her submission to a ae AoP 
of Italy.” 

From the Church of England, thus rescued from the domina- 
tion of Rome during the reign of Henry 8th, and again deliv- 
ered after a temporary depression, ‘under “ the Slene Mary” 
—and purified and established in the days of Elizabeth—and_ 
once more restored from the desolation’ which swept like a 
_ flood over her under the iron rule of Cromwell the'.Protector, 
from this Church, like Israel of .old, with, Amalekites smiting 
her in the face and fiery’ serpents stinging’ at her feet, but still 
holding her onward way, ever lookmg to her Abeiue Head 
for guidance and protection—from this church, the uncompro- 
mising asserter of Catholic verity—the Be ty leleed bulwark 
of protestant principles—the dispenser, at this day, through 
her 18,000 clergymen, of the bread of life to the men of every 
clime and évery complexion—from this church, upon the labors 
of whose missionaries the sun never sets—_whose zeal the fire 
cannot destroy nor the floods quench—from this church, blessed, 
ef God and blessing man, is derived the ministerial authority 
by which you have been brought into the visible fold of Christ, 
made members of his “one body” and united to the Ever- 


living Head. For such grace, mercy and’ privilege, God’s 


holy name be éver blessed; and to Him, the Father, Son and | 
Holy Ghost, be ascribed a honour, praise and “glory, world 
without end ! Amen. ; 


~~ 


Sea 1) 
Leer PTAA hye | 


\ & . moe P TEL ciria' : ¥, | , ey 


“sy ° ‘ 
ia ae st i € me 
~~ "q 3 
f * ° 
Te: Min ea ee . TT ae a 
: ~ £ et é a 4 > Verh < ‘ 8) wnt 
bf 4 : , . re be ' ’ - ua 
2 ‘ i o%, ‘ : 4 is er be 
; eG ass ee oe Avo) Lae” 


Tyee 


SERMON II. 


& 


* BUT WE DESIRE TO HEAR OF THEE WHAT THOU THINK- 
EST: FOR AS CONCERNING THIS SECT,.WE KNOW THAT 
EVERY WHERE IT IS SPOKEN AGAINST.” 

Acts xxviii. 22, .' 


” 


‘Sucu, Brethren, was the reply of the Jews at Rome, to the 
address of St: Paul, when he was sent.a prisoner from Jerusa- 
lem to appear before Cesar. 'To save his life he had appealed 
‘to the highest tribunal known to the laws of the empire, and 
after various vicissitudes by land and by sea, at length found 
himself within the walls of. the imperial city. That his cause 
might not be: prejudiced by the clamors of his’ own country- 
men, whom he’ knew by past experience to be opposed to the 
religion which he taught, he assembled the chief of’the Jews, 
a few days after his arrival, and stated to them the cause 
of his coming: riamely, that being delivered into the hands 
of the Romans, though guilty of no crime, and about to. be 
set at liberty becausé no cause of death was found in him, 
the Jews nevertheless spake against it;. wherefore he was con- 
strained to appeal unto. Ceasar. “Not that I had ought to 
accuse my nation of:” said he: “For this cause therefore 
have I called for you to see you, and to speak with you: be- 
cause that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain, 
And they said unto him, we neither received’ letters out. of 
Judea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came 
showed or spake any harm of thee.» But we desire to hear 
of thee what thou thinkest; for as concerning this sect, we 
know that every where it is spoken against.” i | 

By this sect, is undoubtedly meant, the sect of the Naza- 
renes or followers of Jesus Christ. It was the christian reli- 
gion as taught by St. Paul and thé other Apostles, which every 
where excited the opposition ‘and the enmity of the Jews, and 


mY 


¢ 


“th 


oe 


indeed, generally, of all the nations to whom it was first 
preaehen It was a religion of mortification and self- denial, 
which inculcated internal purity and moral rectitude, a aly 
gion that called for the exercise of constant vigilance over the 
thoughts, no less than a watchful circumspection of the con- 
duct, that rendered it the object of almost universal dislike and 
-aversion. Striking at the roots of temporal ambition, it con- 
tradicted the fondly cherished notions of the Jew in reference 
to national glory and exaltation,—hence it was to him a stumn- 
bling block and a stone of offence. Pronouncing of the Hea- - 
then gods that they were dumb idols—that the worship offered 


* to them was not only vain but an abomination to the true God, 


who would call them into judgment for this perversion of their 
reason, it seemed to. the Gentile a system of arrogance and 
presumption, and he rejected it as foolishness.- Neither. Jew 
nor Gentile in that age had any relish for the humbling doc- 
trines of the Cross. Its charity was opposed to their pride, its 
humility, seefaed to them meanness, its temperance, Ingrati- 
tude to providence in not partaking of its bounties, and its 
glorious promises as the wild dreams of fanaticism. Its sim- 
ple rites and worship giving expression to the devout feelings 
‘of the heart, had nothing in them attractive to the unrenewed 
mind of man, when.set in contrast with the imposing ceremo- 


“nies of the Jewish ritual or the: magnificence. and pomp and 


splendor of Roman worship. Jt can be no cause of wonder 
then, that-every where it was spoken against. Yet it was the 
truth of God, and the wisdom of God, and’the power of God. 
Such it has proved itself to be, by eighteen centuries of endu- 
rance against the natural’ hatred of mankind, by: dispelling the 
darkness of ignorance wherever its glorious light has shined. 
upon our earth, and by subduing the understandings of millions 
‘to the minion of truth and their hearts to the reign of happi- 
“ness ‘and peace. It -would. be interesting, Brethren, to trace 
this religion from its implantation in various countries by the 
labors of the apostles, and show how it has every where 
encountered opposition, and survived not only the overthrow 
of kingdoms, states and empires, but the passing away. of 
entire races and whole nations of men. It is destined,’ per- 
haps, to encounter yet severer strials in its onward progress to 
universal dominion, but sure as Heaven’s truth, it will put 


. down all opposition, ae at last reign without a rival in our 
world. . 

But I have selected this text not for the purpose: of consider- 
ing the grounds of opposition to, christianity originally. They 
‘present, to our minds a very. striking analogy in the position 
which the church occupies towards the world at.the present 


‘ day, and the character of the opposition which is. arrayed. 


against her. It is our purpose to inquire why she. is every 
where spoken. against, and whether opposition to her. is not 
wilful or blind opposition against christianity itself. 


= 


« 


The first charge brought against the church, _., First. objec- _ 


tion; authorit 
is exclusiveness of ministerial authority. If our. Weer cinigty' 


claims upon the subject of the ministry be admit- 

ted, say, those, who, have separated themselves from our com- 
munion, then they are in schism. But.as there are confess- 
‘edly a great many pious people who are not Episcopalians, it 
would be very uncharitable and illiberal-to say that they were 
guilty ‘of schism, and \ we ought. therefore to admit the validity 
of their orders. : 


‘Now we have stated the. objection as it is commonly made, 


and let us meet it fairly and take, at’ the beginning, all ie 
odium which usually attaches to the denial of its. force and 
justice. 

We ask, do piety and learning anf sis, of id aa im- 
part the power of Orders? » It is not so pretended. Why will 
not a pious man receive the sacraments of a pious man simply 
because he is pious, or learned ‘or possessed of aptness to teach? 
‘It'is answered because hé has not been: ordained. Ordmation 
then, it is clear, confers authority which ,is altogether sepa- 
rate and. finite from qualifications for office. ‘'Thus we say 
that’ a man ought to be pious and learned and apt to teach, 
in order ,to receive: ordination, and,.that,he may exercise his 


ministry profitably and to. edification. “But he may be ever’ 


so pious, and Jearned and apt to teach, and: yet be no minis- 
ter. Just so, a lawyer may be just, ad upright and learned 
in the law, and yet not be in the office of a judge. —Quailifi- 
cation for office is one thing, authority to fill the office and exer- 
i its functions is quite another and different thing. 

If ordination then confers, a: power and authority distinct 
' altogether from the qualifications for office, is it unreasonable 
4 5 . 


Wy ue ~* 


ah aoe AD 


to ask and to demand the proof, whence that power and autho- 
rity are derived? “Would you permit any man by his deci-' 
sion to divest you of your rights and property, under the name: 
of law, unless: you ‘were satisfied that he possessed the power 
and : anieace of a Judge? And why ‘then should you allow 
any one to minister to you the sacraments of religion, unless . 
convinced that he was invested with ministerial authority ? 
Now here is the precise line of difference between us and sur- 
rounding denominations whose piety and learning and ability. 
to instruct, we do not deny. We ask, whence your authority | 
to-act ‘as ministers of: religion? Can you show that it is deri- 


ved from Christ and his apostles?’ If this can-be shown, there 


is an end at onee on our. part, of all objection to the orders ,of 
dissenters, and we are more than ‘ready to receive their minis-. 
trations. But if this cannot be shown, what else is the charge 
of exclusiveness brought against the Church,» opt a charge’ 
against the institution of Christ? ops 

Ordination As then ordinatidn is necessary to confer. min- 
necessary; but isterial authority, and it is so acknowledged, the 


. how made va- 


lid? ‘question at once’ arises, how is the power of pai 
nation to be proved? _ We answer that originally the authority 
to act in the name of Christ, in the appointments of religion — 
was ‘certified to the world. by miracles. When the apostles 
and other first teachers of christianity travelled into various 
countriés in fulfilment of the work with. which they were 
charged, they spake with togaupertlisy, healed the ne 
cast out devils 
and’ wonderful works, all of. pian ees conclusive. evidence 
to. men that they were commissioned from on. high. And at 
tl is, day, if anyone came to,us' bearing these unquestionable — 
cledentials—these impressive marks of Heaven's acknowledg- , 
ment, there is not one’ of us that would demand any further 
proof of his auithority. But as these proofs of the 
ean authen- ministerial power are no longer, vouchsafed—as 
»  . . -miracles: have long since ceased, how shall the 


‘authority of the christian ministry be Gertified. and proven, in ~~ 


any -other way, than by showing its transmission from the 


original root? Fruitful as the mind of man is in devising — 
dapttionts to mect a difficult, case, no other than this method, | 


{o prove a succession in-the ministry, has ever been attempted 


‘h 


<5 Mites | oan 


by any, except by those who deny that there is any ministry 
at all established for the perpetual edification and government 
of the church.* But: there is a ‘plain, common sense view to» 
be taken of this subject,, which seems to me, will convince 
any one of unprejudiced mind, not only that a ministry was 
_ established by Christ, but that it. must of necessity have been 
continued all along ‘to the present day, and. will be perpetuated 
~~ to the end of the world. For, first’ of all, Christ constituted a 
ministry, commissioning the apostles, fetire a' church was 
*gathered—hbefore the New T'estament or any part of it -was 
written, , and before any christlan rite or sacfament was- 
administered." His words to the Apostles are: “All power 
is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth; Go ye therefore 
and teach, (or make disciples,) of all Ee Oeee baptizing them 
‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, ahd of the Holy 
Ghost—teaching them to observe all. things whatsoever I have 
commanded -you, and lo! I am with you alway even unto the 
end of the world.”* 
be This declarati ion that he would be with them to the end of 
the world, conveys an assurance as definite as’ language can. 
well express it, of the perpetuity of the christian Noadity 
. ministry. But without dwelling on an interpre- connéxion of s2- 
tation which appears Shficiently obvious, we re- ee phere 
- mark that the: commission enjoins, the perform- - | 
ance of positive and explicit duties, namely: to baptize and 
* teach all things whatsoever he’ hid commanded them. We 
know most assuredly that the apostles did baptize and did 
administer the Lord’s Supper. Were not :these sacraments 
- to be of perpetual obligation ? Can any doubt, that they have 
‘been observed in every age of the Christian Church to the 
present day? Corrupted as they may have been, and un- 
doubtedty were,—ovetloaded and ‘obscured in their obvious 
purpose and ‘design’. as they have been, by the superstitious 
addition’s of man’s presuming wisdom, is it not undeniably 
‘#® true, that they have been celebrated in évery country where 
_ the peiecitit of Christ has been professed, for the last eighteen 
: Peoniurics? Now what do ‘these facts undeniably cotabtati 
“Why, that the institution of sacraments pre-supposes the con- 
stitution of a: ministry—and the perpetual obligation of the 


former—that is sacraments—proves the uninterrupted contin- 
* St. Matt. xxviii. 18-20. 


36 . bas 
» . % 


-uance of the latter. Not a week has: passed, we may safely 


say, since the ascension, that baptism or the Lord’s Supper,, 
has not been celebrated in some part or other of the earth, and 
consequently not a day has passed without witnessing the exis; . 
tence of a ministry in the church. The connexion between 


them, is inseparable, and the fact that men have assumed the 


office of the ministry, proves that the conviction rested upon 
theirminds, that a ministry and sacraments, must go together 


—that they could not be sundered without impugning the au-. 


thority, and impairing the institution of Christ. Furthermore 
the institution of sacraments and the authority to administer 
them resting simply upon the command of Christ, both neces-_ 
sarily Mead? integral parts of the same revelation. The same 
diviné power that commissioned a ministry, commanded the 
observance of sacraments, and both would be utterly destitute 
of obligation, if they. could not be shown. to rest upon the 
declared will of, him, to whom all pomen is given in Heaven 
and Earth. i 
- Under this aspéct of the case—that is, the ministry and 
sacraments being equally integral parts of fepolatinn-- eciele 
of divine institution—may not one be altered, changed or abro- 
gated, with. as much show of reason as the omer? Might not — 


the pretended necessity which would justify an assumption of 


the. ministerial authority and office, just as well authorise the 
entire disuse, or abrogation or alteration of the sacraments? 
{ contess, that with. every disposition to concede to men distin- 
guished for piety, every thing upon this subject, which is not 
utterly repugnant to the plain declarations of Holy Writ and 
their unavoidable meaning, I can see no difference between the 
claims to obedience and submission, of those who undertake 
to change or dispense with the ministry and those who pre- 
sume to abrogate the sacraments.: They must stand or, fall 


together. Consistency has indeed forced very many who have 


denied, one, to reject the other. Thus’ the large and respect- 
able body iG Friends, otherwise known as’ Quakers, have 
i : alike repudiated the ministry and the sacraments 
Neglect of the Ms: | : 
ministry leads to. Of the Gospel, as of binding force and obliga- 
neglect of the tion upon the consciences of men. And as a 


sacraments. 
i, general rule, we may- observe, that those who 


undervalue the authority of the ministry as of divine institu- 


tue 


. 


} 


a 


™% 


37 
tion, make but little account of the sacraments of Christ’s reli- 
gion. ‘They regard them as badges merely of profession—not 
necessary in any sense to salvation, and are consequently 


irregular, inconstant and’ infrequent in their observance. If it 
be true then, that Christ instituted a ministry and sacraments 


- in his chureh—if it be clear that the sacraments are of per- 


-petual obligation and cannot be dispensed or administered with- 
out a standing ministry—if the authority of the ministry. can- 
“not. now be certified by miracles, it follows inevitably that .this 
ministry can be known and verified only as proof shall be 
exhibited that the authority originally delegated by Christ to 
this apostles has been transmitted in an uninter- 

rupted suceéssion to those who at this day claim. ,, 
to exercise office in the Christian,Church. This 

is what is ternted the apostolic succession, for maintaining 
which; the charge of exclusiveness is brought against the 


The Aposto- 
© succession. 


chureh—this is one of the reasons why she “is every where 


‘spoken against.” And yet, strange as it may appear, it 1s 
nevertheless demonstrably true, that all those who contend 
for the institution of a ministry authorized to act in Christ’s 
name, in the appointments of religion, do adopt identically the 
same principle.* Hear the Confession of Faith of the Presby- 

g | \ 

“* Although religion be a concern which equally belongs to every man, yet it 
has pleased the all-wise Head of the Church, to appoint an order of men more 
particularly to minister in holy things. 

_. If all the interests of the church are precious in the view of every enlightened 
Christian, it is evident that the mode of organization cannot be a trivial concern. 
We agree with our Episcopal brethren in believing, that Christ hath appointed 
Officers in his church to preach the word, to administer sacraments, to dispense 
discipline, and to commit these powers to other faithful men. We believe as fully 


as they, that there are different classes and different denominations of officers in* 


the Church of Christ; and that, among these, there is, and ought to be a due 
subordination. We concur with them in maintaining, that none are regularly 
invested with the ministerial character, or can with propriety be recognized in 
this character; but those who have been set apart to the office by persons lawfully 
clothed with the power of ordaining. We unite with such, of them as hold the 
opinion, that Christians in all ages, are bound to make the Apostolic order of 


the Church, with respect to the ministry, as well ‘as other points, the model, as 


far as possible, of all their ecclesiastical arrangements.”—Dr. Miller, professor in 


_ the Presbyterian Theological Seminary, at Princeton, New Jersey. Next hear 


Dr. McLeod, another Presbyterian and famous preacher. “ 4 person who is not 
ordained to office by.a Presbytery has no right to be received as 4 Bie. «43 
of Christ; his administration of ordinances is invalid; no divine blessing 1s pro- 


mised upon his labors: it is rebellion against the Head of the Church to support ’ 


¥ 


¥ 


a 


ey 


38 


| Aerian, Oivich? té ato this catholic visible church, Christ hath’ 


given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of oad for the 
gathering and perfecting of the saints,.in this life, to the end 


‘of the world: and doth.by his own presence and spirit, accord- 


ing to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.” The same 
authority sets’ forth that Baptism andthe Lord’s Supper, are 
“holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,” appointed by 


‘Christ, for our “solemn admission into the. Church,” and for 


“confirming and sealing our interest In him;” and they are. 
not to be dispensed by any but by a minister oF the word law- 


fully ordained.” Do we enquire who are “lawfully ordained 
ministers,” according to, the same standard? We are informed. 


! 


that « the Presbytery,—consisting of all the ministers, and one 
ruling elder from each congregation, within a certain district— 
or any three ministers and\as many elders as may be present 
belonging to the Presbytery,—have ‘power to examine and 

Presbyterians 
as exclusive as ordain, instal, remove, and judge. ministers.” 
acum. What then becomes of the charge of exclusive- 
ness against the church—if the very same, upon identically 
the same erounds, may -be ‘urged against the Presbyterians 


and indeed all others who reject Hpiscopacy, but yet claim 


the power of ordination as grounded upon the commission 
of Christ to his apostles?—Let the truth be told, Brethren— 


‘ honestly—openly—fairly. They flinch from the consequences 


of their declared and published .sentiments. Professing a. °* 


sound principle to which the truth of God’s word, compels 
them to subscribe, they yet deny ts application in practice, 


because its Be ctical exemplification would involve themselves 


in the same odious imputation of exclusiveness which they seek * 
to cast upon the church.—To prove this let us ask the ques- 
tion ; where is the power of ordination lodged in the Church 
of Christ? They reply, in a council of Presbyters. ho. 
lodged it there? The apostles acting under the authority 
of Ghrigt and guided by his holy spirit,—say- they. Now 
_ what is the inevitable conclusion from those positions? Why 
that none others than those presbyterially ordained, are law- 


ati 
“Mi oes his pretensions: Christ has excluded him i in his providenee, Porn pi te 


ch the ordinary door, and if he has no evidence of miraculous power to testify 


ne «eae ag ae he is an impostor!” McLeod’s Ecclesiastical Catechism. 
© Ve . , mL ae 7 . : om a ¢ 
irae é 
im é in % Re ‘ 44. | 
bs a Pe i a 


license candidates for ‘the holy ministry; to - 


3 
% 


39 
fal ministers of Christ. There is no escape‘from this conclu- 
sion; for the apostles did not institute. two modes of ordina- 
‘tion, or leave the matter opened and unsettled by their practice. 
With them there was but one church—but one source of power 
and: authority in it—and hut one ministry—“ There is one 

_ body, and-one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of 

_ your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and 
Father ofall, who is above all, ae through all and in you 
all. 2—If Prasbyierial ordination be: the institution of God— 
Episcopal ordination must be of man. They cannot both be 

- of divine authority, and consequently one or the other must, 
-be without just claims to the obedience of man. If the for- , 
mer, prove it by scripture and the voice of antiquity and we 
surrender Eipiscopacy upon the spot. | 

But that cannot be done my Brethren. The All history a- 

Bible must be changed and the writings of the Seubert 

» Fathers must be changed, before it can be shown pam aged 
that, Presbyterianism is of God and Episcopacy of man. ‘The 
challenge of the judicious Hooker has remained unanswered 
some hundreds of years past, and is likely to continue so,’ 
some: thousands of years to come. “A very strange thing, ‘ 
sure it were,” he remarks, “that such a discipline as ye (the 
Puritans) Sibel of should be taught by .Christ and his apos- 
_tles in the word of God; and no church ever have found it out, 
nor received it until this present time. Contrariwise, the gov- 
ernment against which ye bend yourselves, be observed every. 
where, throughout all generations’ and ages of the Christian . 
world; no church ever perceiving the word of God to be 

against it. We require you to find out but one church upon 

- the face of the whole earth, that hath ‘been ordered by your 
discipline, or hath, not been ordered by ours, ‘that is to say, by 

_ Episcopal regimen, ‘since the time that the blessed Apostles 

re here conversant. Many things out of antiquity ye bring 

Ea the purest times of the church had observed the self- 
same orders which you require; and’ as though your desire 
were that the churches of old, should be patterns for us to, 
follow, and even glasses wherein we might .see the practice 
of that, which by you is gathered out of scripture. But the 
truth is ye mean nothing less. All this is done for. Pe 110N'S 
‘sake only 5 for” ye complain of it as of an injur y, th 


. * Eph. iv. 4-6. _ at 
4 2 : é - . ae A * 
: pat 
* 4 7 -: y - 


a 


¢ ‘ 


ya 
ae 
‘ead 

' i" 


ae 


be 


ay og 


~ 


40 


should be willed to seek for examples and patterns of govern: | 


‘ment in any of those times that have been before.” 

Let those who reject’ Episcopacy meet this demand if thet 
ean—let them trace a succession of ordinations by Presbyte- 
ries, if they deem, such a thing possible, and so far from charg- 
ing them with exclusiveness, we will give up our own oe 
‘and adopt theirs. 

In the mean time let. it not be forgotten that the assumption 
which they make—namely that: presbyterial ordination, has 
the authority of scripture and the sanction of primitive prac- 


tice to uphold it, carries with it all the odious features which it 


is attempted to impress upon the claims of Episcopacy. If a 
council of presbyters only are invested with ordaining power, 
then ordination by a congregation is invalid, and this throws 
the Independents, or Congregationalists and the whole body 


of Baptisis into schism—not only so, it determines. against. 


‘the validity of ordination by a Bishop, in whom alone the 
ordaining power resides according to. our system, and conse- 
quently cuts off both Episcopalians and Methodists.. Thus 
it is plain that the presbyterial system is to all intents .and 
. purposes as exclusive as any other.’ It. is obliged to .be so, 


my friends, in the very nature of things; for as Christ fétnideds 


but one .Church, and committed to it the ministry of recon- 


~ ciliation—that ministry whether. constituted after the model of 
Congregationalism, Presbyterianism. or Ejpiscopacy, necessa- 


ee ee rily excludes all others. The grand question for 
a 3 
“the ministry of US all to determine is, what was the form of gov- 


church. ernment established in the’ primitive church— 


—and deaco ns, and it is agreed that these orders made up the 
ministry 0 of the church in the days of the Apostles. We do 
| not find m kGen once made of ordination by a congregation 
or by 4 council of presbyters—on the contrary, everywhere 


the th eterial authority is conferred expressly by the laying 
on of the hands of the Apostles—not only of the twelve, but 
of Paul and Barnabas—of 'Timothy and 'Titus.. One sing 


' ‘solitary, passage occurs where the laying-on of the hands of 


the presbytery is mentioned.* And even in that case we do 


Cees Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with | 


we wile on.of the ae a the a ae * 1 Tim. iv. 14. ae: 
: | Bas $ 


was it congregational, presbyterial, or episcopal? 
Shall we: appeal to scripture ? We read of Apostles—elders . 


~——- 


41° 


not know that an ordination was referred to. But granting 
that it was an ordination, it seems that the presence and 
_action of an Apostle was necessary to give, it validity. For St. 
Paul, referring to the transaction, let the authority. imparted by 
it, be what it may,’says expressly it was by the Saga on 
of his hands. (2 rr: 1. 6.) | 
‘To meet the arguments: of Episcopalians upon this aitieoe 
drawn from the plain warrant of scripture and the undoubted 
practice of the ‘primitive church, it is alledged that the Apos-- 
tles were extraordinary officers and could have no succes- 
sors—and that after their decease, the government of the 
church necessarily. devolved upon Presbyters. Al! this ought 
to be proven. We-cannot consent to take mere assertion 
for argument, We may say however, in passing, that nei- 
ther Barnabas, nor Silas, nor Junias, nor Andronicus, nor 
Timothy, nor "Titus, appear to have exercised any extraordi- 
nary powers—or to have been extraordinary officers, and yet 
are they called apostles—and some of them we know exercised 
the power of ordination and governed the church, | 
’ Again: those who reject Episcopacy say that it was intro- 
- duced by little and little about the beginning of the 2d cen- 
tury, 8o that before the council of Nice, A. D. 325, it was gene- 
rally prevalent, and after that time was universal till the era 


In answer to the presbyterian gloss on these words, we say: the word presby- 
tery does not necessarily signify a body of presbyters, properly, so called. It is as 
justly applicable to a council of Apostles—for every Apostle was in virtue of his 
office a Presbyter, but it by no means follows that every presbyter was an apostle. 
Every Governor of the State is ex-officio a Trustee of our University—but every 
Trustee is not therefore Governor of the State. 

‘But let us see how ancient and. wise men understood ene ferm © prestyteay” as 
here used by St. Paul. 

St. Chrysostom says, «He (St. Paul) does not here sito of Steers, bet 

- Bishops; for Presbyters do not ordain a Bishop.” . Theodoret. . “In this place 
he calls those-Presbyters (i.e. old men) who had received se, grace of the Apos- 
tleship.” oy ahs 

Theophylact. “© That is, of Bishops; for. Presbyters am not ordain a Bishop.” 
*¢ Others, as Jerome, Ambrose, and last but not least, JOHN CaLvin, maintain 
that the term presbytery refers to the office to which Timothy was then ordained, 
and interpret the passage thus: “ Neglect not the gift of the presbytery or poet 
hood that is in thee, which was given by prophecy and the laying on of hands.” 

Lastly, hear St. Paul’s explanation of his own words. “ Wherefore I put thee ‘ 
in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by ae pur } 


Ps ting on of my hands.” (2 Tim, ie 6. f P “s set 
’ . 4 
% é * e 4 
mm Pl a% . 


—— 2 


42° 


of the reformation. “A very strange matter, if it were true,” 
says Archbishop Bancroft, “that, Christ should erect a form of 
government for the ruling of*his church, to continue from his 
departure out of the world, until his coming again, and that . 
the same should never be thought of or put in practice for the 
space of fifteen shundred years:, or at least, that the govern- 


‘ment and kingdom of Christ should then be pu a ay when 


by all men’s confessions, the divinity of his person, we virtue 


‘of his priesthood, the power of his office as he. is a prophet, 


and the honor of his kingly authority, was so. godly, so learn- 
edly, and ‘so mightily established against «the Arians ‘in the 
council of Nice,.as that the confession. of: the Christian faith, : 
then. set forth, hath ever since without contradiction | vn 
received | in the church.” 7 
Strange mdeed that so eos a change in 
»No record of the ae of church government, as: that denstea 
any change. ; ne! 

gech ‘by Episcopacy from parity should take place 
and. no record be made of the fact—no detail of. the circum- 
stances by which it was effected be mentioned by so much as’ 
one writer. Strange beyond the power:of explanation, that 
light and trivial matters about which Christians then differed, 
should’ find.a place in the annals of those times, and yet the 
wonderful revolution from the présbyterial to the Episcopal 
mode of government pass utterly unnoticed, So early as the 
time of Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna and the ‘disciple of 
St. John, the whole christian world was agitated by the ques- 
tion, on what day should Haster be.observed? and Polycarp 
journeyed all the way from Asia to Rome to adjust the: differ- 


ence. Can we really think that such things would form mat- 


ters of grave’ discussion, and the introduction of Episcopacy 
pass unheeded ? When, people make such -demands: of us, 
they must ask us ‘to lay aside the common sense and under- 


standing ‘of men. 


“When I shall see” says the. learned Chillingworth, “all 
the fables in the metamorphosis acted, and proved true sto- 
ries; when I shall see all the denials and aristocracies 
in the world lie down and sleep, and awake into monarchies ; 


‘then. will I begin to believe, that. presbyterial poverninent, 


having continued’ in the stand during the apostles’ time, 


“should presently after (against the Apostle’s doctrine and the | 


~~ 409 es 
eS 7 


iM 


) 


43 


will of Christ) be whirled about like a scene in a mask, and 
transformed ‘into Episcopacy. In the meantime, while these 
things remain thus incredible, and in human reason impossi- 
ble; I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus: Episcopal ‘ 
government is acknowledged to have, been universally received 
in the church, presently after the Apostles? times.” 

“Between the apostles’ times and this presently after, there 
was_not time enough for, nor possibility of so great an altera- 
tion.” | | 
» “And therefore, there was no such*alteration as is pretended. 
And therefore, Hpiscopacy, being confessed to be so ancient 
and catholic, must be granted also to be Apostolic.” 

Perhaps enough has now been said to show that there is 
no just ground of complaint against the church, because of 
her exclusiveness. Since’ she occupies in this respect, the 
_ same position with others. If to be built upon the foundation 

of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the’ chief 
corner stone, be to render us exclusive, let it be even so.— 
‘We cannot help it. We dare not undertake to amend or alter 
that which divine wisdom has ordained:and appointed. 

It gives me no pleasure, I am sure, toshow the Union upon 
points of difference between ourselves and other proper grounds 
denominaticns.. I would that we were-perfectly ¢3"°* 
joined together in the same mind’and judgment, and that we 
all spake the same things. But when points of difference are 
misunderstood and. especially when .they are misrepresented, 
silence on my part would be an unworthy abandonment of 
known obligations—would be a criminal. indifference to the 
prevalence of error—and a disregard of your most important 
and dearest interests. .I have no sympathy, and I hope you 
have none, with that mawkish. sensibility which fears the 
honest declaration of the truth, lest it make others feel unplea- 
‘sant. I have no respect for that pretended liberality of opinion, 
which under the name of charity, will embrace all professions 
of Christianity as equally sound branches of the one catholic 
Church of Christ—and will cast into the shade all distinctive 
principles as non essential and of minor consequence. Chris- 
tianity, Brethren, “vejoiceth in the truth,” as well “as hopeth 
all things, and endureth all things.” And while we dare not 
pronounce.upon the character of those who follow unscriptural 


a 3 4 ~ 


- them to attain eternal life. 


44 


and erroneous systems—while we leave them to the just and 
righteous judgment of that God before whom we must all stand 
at last, it is nevertheless our duty to-show them their error, to 
lead éhierh to embrace the truth and by all Fgh means aid 

Having therefore . made a pees upon this sibjede I 
shall, God being my helper, go into it thoroughly and leave 
nothing untouched as to the order, doctrine and worship of 
the church, which may conduct you to a correct understand- 
ing of, Ran principles-and your own correspondent privileges | 
and duties, And if I sueceed in’ this, [ know the necessary 
effect will be to inspire you with increasing reverence for the 
institutions which God has established—and with a deeper 
sense of gratitude to that good providence which has wrought 
wondrously and mercifully for you, and: brought you into con- 
nexion with his holy church. | 


[ 


é 


SERMON IIT. 


“BUT WE DESIRE TO HEAR OF THEE WHAT THOU THINK- 
EST: FOR AS CONCERNING THIS SECT, WE KNOW THAT 
EVERY WHERE IT IS SPOKEN AGAINST.” eh & 
: . be is. ACTS XXvili. 22. 

Iv is not a little remarkable, that in the assaults made’ upon 
Christianity, both in ancient aid ‘modern times, the chief point 
of attack has ever been the ministry of the i haurch. The rea- 
son, is plain. Every system which proposes to . he eieint de’ 
teach men ‘their duty in what most nearly con- 4 necessary’ de- 
cerns- them, must have defenders. And this is tianity see 
more especially necessary, i a case where the - . 
instructions delivered, are professedly - based upon the expres- 

* sion of the divine weil. If there were not an order,of, men set 

‘for the defence of .the Gospel, it would very soon cease to, exert 
‘any influence, and like other systems, sink into oblivion, from 
the attacks of its enemies, and from the indifference of man- 
kind to whatever does not in some way subserve their pre- 
sent interests. This must. be apparent enough to any one 
who has been observant of the prevailing tone of moral feel- 
ing, in those communities where the gospel is seldom,or never 
preached, and in those countries where its truths are much 
obscured and its doctrines much corrupted. 'The principles 
of Christianity impose a check upon the, passions of men, 
and thus offer a restraint to those pursuits in which their pas- 
sions lead them to engage. Jts present rewards are not attrac- 
tive to the unrenewed mind of man, while its promises are for 
the most part, future and distant. ‘Hence its sanctions are of 
that awful and impressive character which the Bible addresses’ 
to our natural and instinctive fears, warning, us of a judgment 
to come, and the solemn retributions of eternity ; and hence it 


uses the language of authority. 


Fs a ‘ 
> . ~y 


a 


46 : 


It was doubtless from a ‘wise fordsight of the proneness of 
the human mind to’ become “engrossed with “ temporal things” 
to the exclusion and neglect of the « things that are eternal,” 
that God established his church, having in it appointments to 
keep alive the remembrance of ‘our future accountability and 
most important interests, and committed to it the ministry of. 
_ reconciliation, charged with the special duty of rousing’ men 

‘by. warning and rebuke, fromthe slumbérs of a careless. and 
unreflecting life—and of quickening them in the pursuit of a 
heavenly crown by holding up to their view ene glorious 
rewards. of eternity. 

That God ‘did establish his ania in the world, admits 
of no more question, than that he made a revelation to man- 
kind. That he appointed a ministry in that church, deriving 
their authority to act in the appointments of religion Gah him, 
is equally plain and certain. That this authority, whatever it 
be, is delegated, no one will deny. By delegated authority, T 
mean ,of course, authority to act in the name of another. It is 
authority in Opposition to that which is assumed. - And that 
_ no one is allowed to assume such authority in-the name of 
God, is manifest from the’ whole recorded history of the divine 
fitspeusatior€ as well as clear from express declarations of 
‘Holy, Writ. “No man. taketh this honor to himself ”__says 
the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews—*“ but he that is 
called of God as was Aaron.” “So, also Christ glorified not 


"himself te be made an high priest; but he that said unto him,» 
Thowart my Son, to day have [begotten thee,”* Such a decla: .’ 
ration, enforced by the reference to the illustrious examples ‘ 


piedwened by the Apostle in confirmation of its truth, must” 
settle forever the question; whether the ministerial authority 
“may be assumed or not—it must for ever stamp the seal of 
' .reprobation upon all assumptions of the ‘ministry 
McKnight a 5 : | 
“Presbyterian, on Without warrant. Dr. McKnight, a learned Pres- 
cre of byterian divine of the church of Scotland, in his 
celebrated work on the Epistles, has these words: 
«The account of the designation, character and office of an 


high priest, the Apostle, applies to Messiah, by observing, that 


as in the gospel church, no man can.take the dignity of an 
high priest to himself but only the person who is called to 


the office, by God, like. Aaron in the Jewish _Church—so the 
* ‘Heb. v. 45 5. 


t 


~% 


ss 


. 


ie 


9 
A 
a he 


47 : 

- 
Christ, did not, by his own authority} assume the office of 
high priest in the house*of God; but he bestowed that dignity 
upon him, who declared him his son, by raising him from the 
dead.” Aaron was set, apart and consecrated to the priest- 


‘heod,—he and: his sons,—afier an open and public manner, 


Gaieline to the .express command of God, by Moses. . His 
consecration was the visible and declared designation to the 
office to which God had called him and’ his baile And when 
afterwards Korah and his company assumed to themselves the 


same office, and. undertook to’ offer incense to. the Lord, upon 


the’ alledged plea, that all the congregation were holy, God 
fried ibwedk in a singular and awful manner for their punish- 
ment, and commanded a memorial to be made to be a token 
to the children of Israel through their generations that no one 
who was not of the seed of Aart should come near to offer 
incense before the Lord—that is to execute the office of priest 


 hood—“ lest he perish as did Korah, and his company.”* As 


‘Aaron was’ publicly called to his office—so was Christ. For 


it was not until’ his baptism in Jordan and the voice which 


came from God, proclaiming him to be’ his beloved Son, that 


Jesus began his-public ministry. 


' Whatever then be the picty, the righteousness, and the learn- 
ing of any man, they do not in themselves confer the power 
of office, ey necessary they may be to the proper dis- 


OD charge 6 its duties. There are doubtless many men in our 


_ country qualified to fill the office of ambassador . 


* the station unless he have received the requisite 


- Personal qual- 


to foreign courts, yet no one is competent to fill ifications do not 
confer office. 


» grant of authority to do so from the President and’ Senate. 


His knowledge and talents, be they ever so great, will not be 
taken as his credentials,‘ to act as the representative of the 
government. ‘Neither will his declaration cause him to be 
received as, the nation’s accredited agent’’ In short, he must 
present ho commission and when that is received, his acts, 
whether he possess learning and skill in diplomacy or not, are 
valid and binding to the “full extent, letter and spirit big his 
instructions. 
Just so there are many possessed of high and eminent quali. 

fications, by reason of their piety, knowledge and other gifts. 


to act as ambassadors of Christ. Still these talents, hence 


bd Numb. Xvi. 


4 


: a 


, 


$ 


te 


48. 


essential to the efficiency of the ministry de not any more 
make one a minister of Christ’s religion—than knowledge and 
skill make another minister to a foreign court. The commis- 


_ sion or authentic letter of authority derived from the true and 


proper source of power in both cases is indispensable’ to give 
validity to ministerial acts. In either ‘instance, the minister 
acts not in his own name, but in the name of another. He is 
an agent and must act according to the tenor of given and 
prescribed instructions. The message which he bears may be 


most unpleasant to deliver; but it is not his own, but his who - 


sends him,.and he: must deliver it even in the terms in which 


he received it) or prove faithless to his trusts Unless these 


things be so, Brethren, the government which God has estab- 
lished in his kingdom on Earth—called the Church—is less 


certain in its provisions—less definite in its objects—less wise | 
in its appointments—less fixed in its arrangements and less — 
sure in its results than the institutions’ of men. ‘Once make 


the Church the mere figment of man’s creation—once regard. it 


in the light only of a human contrivance and subject to the 
alteration or amendment of man’s presuming wisdom, in any of 
its original and essential features, and all Vitality is gone from 


_ its Lee al authority from: its enactments—all confidence from 


its promises and all the assurance of heavenly hope from the 
participation of its ordinances, It becomes the frail and totter- 


-ing fabric of man’s caprice—built up of “hay and stubble,” and 


doomed to’ “ suffer loss” when proved by the’ aH fires ” 


of God’s truth—Such is. not the church of God built upon the 
foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself 
being the chief corner stone—Such is not the holy citadel of 
@ith, hope and charity, against which ‘the gates of Hell shall 
not prevail. “Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell 
the towers thereof. Mark ye ,well her bulwarks, consider her 
valaces. As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of 
the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God: God will establish it 
for ever.” Thus sang David, under the law: and if his words, 


inspired by the Holy: Ghost, were true of Jerusalem or Zion, | 


‘the type of the christian church, how much more shall they 


not be thought applicable in every respect to that which St. 
Paul calls the “House of God, which is the church of the 
living God, the pillar and, sfougn of the truth.” ih 

* 1 Tim. 1. ‘15. 


2 ] 


- Ja 7 — 


¥ 


ee | OR, 

- In these views perhaps we shall all be found to agree. None 
will deny the authority and perpetuity of Christ’s church: none 
»- ‘ will question the fact that ‘the. christian ministry is a purely 
4 delegated power deriving its authority alone from 7), Ministry 
. God, If any. deny this last..position, ‘we leave a purely'delega- 
: _ him'to settle the point with St. Paul, who says: “¢Po¥™ 

» “As we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, 
*) even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth: 
~~ our hearts.”* And, again, “ Now then we are ambassadors for 


-) Christ, ‘as though God ‘did beseech you by us; we pray you , 


es aT Christ’s aead be ye reconciled to God.”t hadodaes of the 
‘ hike import, etoinidy’ in the New Testament. ° £ The glorious 
: gospel ef the blessed God,” which says St. Paul, “was com- 
“mitted to my trust.”{- “ So account of us as of the. ministers 
of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover 
it is ‘required i in stewards, that a man be found faithful.”§ “ Ap- 

‘proving ourselves as the ninisters of God.”1 “Seeing we have 
this ministry we faint not.”** “ All things are of, God, who hath’ 
‘~ econciledus to himself by Jesus Christ, and, Hathite siven to 


us the ministry of reconciliation.”{t “I an Gfeat Tass our. 


‘Lord, who hath enabled. me; for that he counted me’ faithful, 


putting me. ito tlie ministry.”{t Take heed to ‘the ministry . 


which thou hast. received in the Lord that thou fulfil-it.’’9§ 


“ Make-full ptoof of thy ministry.”" Thus, by whatéver terms, 


office in the church is described—whether trust, ambassador- 
ship,«stewardship or. ministry, we are at oncé ieriinded of its 
* delegated character, and that great.and solemn responsibility, 
* ‘from: the very nati, Bench - and authority of the charge, 
‘  attaches*to its management. » 
" Indeéd it seems wonderful that’ any other’ view show ever 
have been*taken of this, subject, and. that the idea should have 
‘been entertained that the ministry was not to be perpetuated as 


originally constituted in the New Testament. For when we. 


open that little volume and inquire into the character of Christ’s 
religion, we are met at the outset by the information that, the 
+ Pee he i is to be preached to all nations. and that its institutions 
are to run co-eval with’its propagation and extension even to 
_ the end of the world. We read that sacraments were ordained 
of Christ and were ‘to be Observed. by all those in all places 


where the faith was embraced. Has not this religion come 
~ * 1 Thessy ii. 4. “2 Cor. y: 20. $1Tim.i.11. . § 1Cor. iv. 1, 2. 
; “1 2Cor. vid. © ** 2Cor. iv.1.  f4 2Cor.v.¥.  441Tim. i. 12. 
bs im.” i . 1. iv. 17 
Wee 0 ey §§ 2. Tim: iv. 5. 7 77 Col. iv. 17. 
7 , 4 


a 


id ‘ 


50. 


‘ 


down éven to us? ‘Have not its sacraments been administered - 


for the last eighteen centuries, wherever ‘faith in the ‘Saviour 


has been eetned and received. By whom,, Brethren, has . 


this faith been preached and these sacraments: been Boke ad-, 
ministered? 'There can be but one answer to these questions. 
We must say by the ministry. The church, sacraments and - 
ministry, thus become ‘witnesses to the truth. of Chuist’s reli- 
. gion. During the darkest period of the world’s history—when 
~ the light of God’s truth shone ‘dimly, when’ the dectrine of 
_ Christ was most obscured by the traditions of men and when 
corruptions most marred the fair form, of Christianity, under 
papal misrule and usurpation, still the church, sacraments and 
ministry existed and /gave united testimony to the ‘world. that 
Jesus had died and that through his name salvation Was yet 
assured to the. hope of perishing man. The great facts upon 
which the doctrine of redemption is founded, have thus been 
- preserved’ to the. world and would be again, should darkness 
once more cover the earth and gross darkness the people. 

It is not denied by any, so far as I know, that Christ, after 
his resurrection and previous to-his ascension into Heaven, 
commissioned the eleven Apostles to, gather, his church. and 


settle its order. and government.. During the, last. forty days . 


of his continuance upon earth; we are told, he came to them 
from time to time, giving them Pk Aen eae , and “ speaking 
of the things pertaining . to the kingdom of: Goa: »* Tt is not to. 


be supposed in reason then, that’ they. were left. in ignorance | 


as to the extent of their powers or as to the order of adminis: 
tration which Christ would have established “in* his church. 
Still less is this supposition reasonable when we remember 


that the Apostles were under the guidance of ‘that holy spirit — 


which was to lead them into all truth and to bring to their 


remembrance all things whatsoever that. Jesus had said unto: 


them. ‘In fulfilment of their’ trust, it is’ certain that they in a 
7 bce Mot public manner en Matthias in the place of 
the Primitive , Judas, and*“he was numbered with the eleven 
peeled 4 " Apostles. Equally clear and certain is it, that 


twelve. others, as Paul and Barnabas and Silas, and 


Timothy and .Titus and James, were called Apostles—and 


that they exercised the powers of Apostles in governing the 


church, and in ordaining to the holy, ministry. . These there- 


* Acts 1. 3. f Acts 1 26 


oJ 


— 


” 


as 


2 


BL 


° 


- fore according to the express language of scripture, constituted 


the first or’ highest order of the gospel ministry. The’ testi- 
mony is UAE direct and conclusive as to the constitution of 
the second and third orders of the ministry, viz: the order of 
Elders, Bishops or Presbytérs as they are interchan zeably * 

deented in the New Testament, and the order. of Deacons. 
- These are the orders of the chine ministry as unquestion- 
ably established in the days of the Apostles. The testimony 


: of the New Testament is silent as to any other order’ of admin- 


istration. , Its canon closes with this’ arrangement, and if any 
change or alteration of this order was made, the evidence of 
it must be sought for elsewhere than in the records of inspi- 
ration. The assertions therefore that Christ and his Apos- 
tles left no specific. directions as to the order and government 
of the church, and that the whole subject was left open to the 
. exigencies oe times and occasions, .are ‘wholly gratuitous— 
utterly destitute of proof and flatly contradicted by the. fact 
that Christ continued forty days with the Apostles giving them 
“commandments and speaking of the things, pertaining to the 
kingdom of God—and by: the fact also that the Apostles did 


* It is freely admitted - Episcopalians: ‘that these terms are thus interchangéably 
used in the New Testament. The admission is improved into an argument in the 
hands of the opponents of Episcopacy,.who most preposterously, argue from a com- 
munity of names to a community in rank or order. The fallacy a the argument 
has been too frequently exposed to need repetition here. . But it may nevertheless be 
useful to subjoin the testimonies of Theodoret and Isidore on this subject, who lived 
inthe 5th eentury and whose evidence in the case will preety be conic! ed by 
the “‘ wise and prudent,” conclusive. 

.Theodoret. «‘Epaphroditus was called the Bebathe of the Philippians, because 
he was entrusted’ with the Episcopal government, 48 being their Bishop. For 
those now called Bishops, were anciently called Apostles; but. in process of time, 
the name of Apostle was left to those who were truly Apostles, and the name of 
Bishop was restrained to those who ere anciently called Apostles: Thus Epaphro- 
dits was the Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretans, and Timothy of the 
Asiatics.” 

Isidore. “<< The Bishops succeeded the, Apostles—they were cqututulal through 
the whole world in the place, of the Apostles.” Isidore then says, that “* Aaron 
‘the High Priest, was what a pishep is, and Aaron’s sons prefigured the Presby- 
ters.” 

-Mosheim, oriiah will not be wdapeeted of any undue partiality towards Episcopacy, 


says of Isidore, the Bishop of Pelusium. ‘He was a man of uncommon learning 


and sanctity. A great number of his Epistles are yet extant, and discover*more 
piety, genius, erudition and’ wisdom, than are to be’ found in the voluminous pro- 
‘ductions'of many other writers.” ; 


. 


* 


admit others into their number, and did ordain Presbyters and 
Deacons. The obscurity and lack of precision’ which some 
men allege to be thrown around the order and government of | 
the Apostolic Church, are nothing short: of empty pretences, 
and are about as bles to excuse their irreguarities and 
schisms, as the alleged mysteries of faith, are ‘to excuse the 
‘indifference and sin of unbelief. + | . 
-wThe three-fold constitution’ of the ministry as above stated, | 
composed of Apostles, Presbyters and Deacons in their respec: 
tive orders, we hold to be the, form of church’ government’ as 
clearly Befiied ‘in! the New Testament. As it was éstablished 
by divine authority and undeniably continued till the canon, 
and of course the testimony of sacred scripture, was closed 
we are comipelled to regard it.as of perpetual obligation.and 
unchangeable, until authority can be shown to alter it.” | 
If we would inquire as to the powers which these three 
orders exercised respectively, we must look at their commis- 
sions and at their acts. “As to the Apostles we find that thir- 
teen of them were special witnesses of the résurrection of Jesus’ - 
_ Christ. They were chosen for that specific purpose; and_so 
‘ far could. have no successors.. For the idea of witnéssés hav- 
ing successors carries absurdity on its very face» ‘They may 
be cotemporancous witnesses to the same matters of fact, as 
the: five hundred brethren’ who saw Christ after his: resurrec- 
. tion on a mountain in. Galilee, were with the Apostles then 
_ present, mrattiossos of one and itis same fact. But to bear tes- 
iat PO timony tothe resurtection of Christ was’ not tlie 
postles not wits only duty with which the Apostles were ‘charged. 
nesses merel¥; Tf we turn to their commission we shall see that 


‘but’ -tmhinisters 
also in the or- they were specially charged to preach the gospel 


bef ne tovall nations and to Ba ptids them in the name 
ernors of the of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. _ Accord- 
ehtrch. 

ingly we find, in tracing the history of their acts, 
that they not only testified that Christ was -raised: from the 
dead, but also preached, and baptized for the remission of sins, 
and that they ordained others to the performance - of the like 
offices. "They, or-at least a portion of them, possessed also the - 
power of conferring the miraculous gifs of the Holy Ghost by 

i Archbishop Whately’s preposterous concessions Upon ios point to the con- 

trary notwithstanding. ig teat oe 

A? : ‘ 


2 
i 


ce 


D2. 


the imposition of their hands. Some of them also were en- 
dowed with the spirit of prophecy. In these things then: as 
witnesses of the resurrection of Christ—as prophets—as bestow- 
ers of miraculous gifts, their office was extraordinary and as 
such they had no successors. . 

But it is. remarkable that in: the commission given to the 
apostles, which was antecedent to the day of ‘Pastdoos when 
they received the’ gift of the Holy Ghost—no reference. is 
made to their extraordinary powers. The tenor of their com- 
-mission*as recorded by St. Matthew and St. John, runs thus. 
«All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth. Go ye 
therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in’ the name 
of the, Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teach- 
ing ‘them to observe all things whatsoever. I have commanded — 
you, and lo I am with ‘you alway even unto the.end of the 
world.”* “Then ‘said Jesus to them again,” are the: words of 
St. John, “Peace. be unto you: As my Father hath sent me, 
even so send T you: And when he had’ said this he bréathed 
on’them, and ‘saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 
Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are témitted unto them, and 
whosesoever sins ye retain thea? are retained.” 

‘These last words, respecting the, power of remitting and 
retaining sins, are generally understood: as conveying. the 
power of discipline—of. inflicting’ and removing church cen- 
sures—-a power ‘claimed and exereised* by ‘all’ denominations 
to thisextent, and «indeed - indisperisable to ‘the preservation 
of purity and order in any society whatever, 

caw commission, ‘of the Apostles sets forth that they are to 
—and ‘to exercise discipline. And* certainly 
so far at: least no one will deny that they may and ever have 
had successors in office. But the commission, as recorded by 
both the evangelists, clearly indicates that they were invested 
with yet higher. powers. Besides making disciples. of all na- 
tions—-which is regarded: as a more correct rendering, than 
teaching all nations—and baptizing them; they are further- 
more to teach them :to observe all things whatsoever’ Christ 
_ had commanded. Now as these. things whatever they were, 
are not specifically set forth in thé commission itself, it seems, 
reasonable to conclude that we must search for them in what 


‘the Apostles taught and in what they did. They have re- 
. St. Matt. XXViil. 18-29. ° ° Sit St. John xx. pag 


‘ et% 
* ’ 


54 


oat what ag taught and what ibe did also: at least to: 
a sufficient extent, we must suppose, to furnish the man of 
God thoroughly unto every good word and work. ‘And among 
the things which they did, acting under Christ’s commission, 
we know that they Biased to the ministry, and in so doing 
not oly established a precedent for those whom they. thane 
ordained, to ‘do ‘as they had done, but moreover gave express 
aaeotisng to that end. “'T'he thiies that thou hast heard of, 
me among many witnesses,” says St. Paul to Timothy, “the 
same commit thou, to faithful men, who shall be able to. teach 
others also.”*_ > , 

The words of St. Tohit in recording the salt of authority 
to the Apostles, convey the idea of still more ample powers. 
'“ Asmy Father hath sent’ me, even. so I send-you:” and.then 
breathing on them said, “Receive ye'the Holy Ghost.” What- 
ever'may be made out of these words, no one will deny that 
this much at least is certain, that Christ invests his Apostles 
with full power and authority to settle the order, and admin- 
ister the affairs of his kingdom ‘on earth. . ‘A hatower then they 

_ What the’ “taught, and commanded in pursuance of this. ob- 
rere ae ject, we hold to be binding upon the consciences i 
they taught; . Of all believers. ‘That they ordained elders is not 
what did they? -denied—that these elders ministered.in the church 
in subordination to-a higher order of the ministry called Apos-. 
tles, is as.clear as any other’ fact recorded in the: sacred wris 
fasesithal not’a single instance of the elders exercising, the 
power of ordination, has: ever. been clearly made out is: just 
as certain, as that ine higher or apostolic order did exercise 
that power. "That the Apostles ordained Deacons is admitted 
—that these deacons both preachéd and baptized, and so far 
were ministers, stands as plainly recorded in the Acts of the 
Apostles » as. any thing else tobe read, therein. Here then, 
Brethren, int “the ministry of the church thus constituted of 
Apostles, Presbyters and Deacons; is that Episcopacy for which 
we contend as the order established by divine wisdom in 
Christ’s, kingdom on earth. Christ said -he would be with 
the Apostles “always, even unto the end Ah the world.” Are 
.we ‘to suppose then that the Apostles left the church desti- 
tute of a ministry—that they: left the whole body of believers 


Wrousiaaeh the world, ‘in Jerusalem, Antioch, Luphesus, Rome, 
* 2 Tim. il. 2 4 


i 
oi we 
¢ 


‘7 


D5 


Corinth, and a hundred other places where they had. planted 


_the faith of the gospel, in an unorganized state—left them to 


choose a ministry and. ordain: them from ‘among: themselves— 


to define their _powers and settle the limits. of their. jurisdic- 


tion?” Such a supposition lies not within the boundaries. of 
the most extravagant credulity. It would’ be ‘an “example 
without precedent in the history of man. ‘It- was a thing 


plainly impossible from the very nature of, the christian insti- 


tution, , having. ordimances to be administered, and -by neces- 


- sary consequence, ‘requiring an order of men-for that purpose, 


invested with power and authority to perpetuate the office. of 
administration. . And accordingly the very first witnesses that 


' present themselves .to our examination,after the writers of the 


‘New Testament had passed off the stage’ of. action—witnesses, 
some of whom saw.and conversed. with ‘the apostles and: i 
boured with them in, their ministry—witnesses, upon whom 


- we ate obliged. to. rely, to prove ‘the. authenticity and genuine- 


‘ness of the new Testament—these witnesses testify, with one 
voice, that the ministry of the, church in their day was consti- 


. tuted after the ‘model of the Apostolic age—that they did not 


establish: it, after‘ the form or order in which it existed among 
them’, but that they had so received it’ from the apostles them- 
selves. T'o illustrate the value of these witnessesy}: ‘Pose to is 
let us ask, how know we. that the book called the. made of the 
' : y “oe,1 « «writers .of, the 
‘New Testament was written in the age of thé gst three cen- 
apostles and by the disciples of. Christ? Thomas . turies. 

Paine asserts that it was written three hundred years later. 
How. do-we meet this* bold and unblushing assertion of infi- 
delity? ‘Simply, by referring. to the writings of the Fathers 
of the first three. centuries. They make mention of the gos- 
pels of the New Testament and of other portions’ of the same 


good and suflicient-to settle the simple question of fact, whether 
the New Testament was in existence in-their respective ages 
or not? If yea, then why is not the same testimony equally. 
available to settle the questidn’ of fact, as to what was the 


‘order of the Christian ministry. ‘Let us, heat, them spedk ‘for 
themselves. We begin with Clement of Rome; whom St. Paul 


commends as bys fellow laborer in his’ epistle to the PDOAPPE, 


. 


- work and quote passages from it.~ Is their. testimony then. 


4 


. 36 


* He wrote about 40 years after our Lord's death and 
ate the life-timeof St. John... «, gg EH 
He says in his Ist Epistle to ‘the Corinthians.* “ The apos- 
‘tles preaching through countries and cities, appointed the 
| first, fruits of their conversions to be pene and ministers © 
over such as should afterwards believe.” —“ The apostles — 
knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should conten- 
tions artse concerning’ the episcopal namnve (or. order) and 
for this cause, having perfect foreknowledge (of these’ things,) ° 
they did ‘ordain, those whom we have mentioned before ; and * 
moreover, did establish the constitution, that other approved 
meh should succeed those,who died in. thew office*and minis- 
try.” —* To the high priest his proper offices were appointed ; 
the priests had their’ proper. order, and the levites their. pecu- 
liar services or hag age and the laymen what was pro- 
| per for lay ymen.” - This. St: Clement: applies’ to the distribu- 
tion of orders in ‘the Christian Church, bishops, priests and 
deacous.. : ate ' 
Such. is he plain, unequivocal and.decisive testimony of the 
earliest ecclesiastical writer, whese works have reached us, next 


after: the apostles. . A writer who-was himself chosen bi the. - 


apostles arid appointed to: preside as bishop over one of the . 
churches which they had planted. te 

The néxt witness’ we produce is Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 
A. D.71,.. He was constituted Bishop of Antioch, by the apos- 
‘tles then living ¢, and wrote epistles to ‘various. bhinichak, while 
‘on his journey to.Rome, in which jhe exhorts the inferior minis-, 
ters, presbyters and deacottts to be ins stibjection to their bishop. 
He séaled, the truth of his religion by suffering martyrdom, 
being thrown to wild beasts at Rome, by order of ‘Trajan, less 
than, ten yedrs after the death of. St. Jotpa: or about A. D. 107. 


| om 


¥ ~ 
* 


~ 


To the Ephesians, after speaking of their: “excellent bishop - 


Onésithtis,” «he thus writes: “ Por ‘even Jesus Christ our in- 
separable life, ‘as sent. by the will of the Father; as the 
bishops, appointed unto the utmost bounds of the basin; are 
by the will of Jesus Christ») °.. i 


‘To the Magnesians : “T- exhort you that ayoit elit ss do- 


all things wn a divine concord ;, Leu Maas OEMS an the 


es j bee, See Oxford ol Eidon 1677, $ Ag, P 8b. 


Py ; ; et + 


Pi, 


, 57 Oy aces ‘ 


é 


place’ of God, your shoe bip tal in the place of the council of 


BP the apostles ; and, your deacons: most dear. to me, ‘being en- 


wh 


trusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.” * Such language 
partakes largely, you ‘perceive, of. the hyperbotical style of the 
oriéntals. We are quoting Ignatiug, you will remember, not 


ni to settle the point of reverence-and dignity’ due to the min- 


ria 4 


istry, but to show the fact stated, that the~ ministry” consisted 
of three orders. In. this ‘same epistle he mentions’ by name, 
the bishop Damas, the Siar ial Bassus and. Apollonias, arid 
the deacon Sotia. ‘ j 


‘ 
_ To the 'Trallians: “ Let: all’ reverence ihe deacons as Jesus 
Christ, and the bishop'as the Father, and the presbyters-as . 


‘the Sandhedrim of God and college of the -apostles—he that 


does any thing without .the bishop and pr sr heoniig uid Hee : 
cons, 1s not pure.in his conscience.’ 

To the Philadelphians: “ To, those’ who were in unity with 
.their bishop and presbyters and deacons—there is one bishop 
with his. presbyters, and the deacons my fellow’ servants— 
-Giveheed to the-bishop and to the presbytery and to the alae 


-— cons-—do nothing without the bishop. 4 


o*the Smyrneans, over whom Polycarp the distiple of. St. 
Johit, presided as bishop: “ See that ye all follow your bishop, 
-as Jesus Christ did the Father ; and the presbyters. as the 
apostles. and reverence the ieacode as the.command of God 
—my soul be security for them that » ssilage to their bishop with 
their.presbyters and deacons.” 
“Is it posible. for any intelligent. ‘aiid mee mind to read 


“these guatations and come to:any’other coliclusion thany that 


there were three orders,—bishops, priest8 and deacons—in the 
christiansministry jn the age of Ignatius ? ‘If. his’ words prove, . 
any. thing» they undoubtedly show that in the first century, . 
the Christian: Chutch was. episcopally constituted—that » the : 
three orders of the ministry were regarded ag of divine insti- 
_ tution -and a ai apie to. the regular constitution of 
aveny ehurch:*,. . > 

We next cite y Raheny Eker of Sig In his erigila to 
the Philippians he.says: “ Polycarp dnd the presbyters that 
vare with him, to the Church of Giod which 4s. at Philippi, ce.” 

— the deacons must be.blameless as the ministers of God in 
Christ and not» of pearls A Het subject to the priests and _ 


“ . 
; y 


58 . 


deacons—and let the elders be -compassiqnate—and merciful 
towards all.”’, Here again is direct, evidence against that parity 
which opposes itself to episcopacy. 

» We come to the second century, and here we find | Treneus 
the disciple of Polycarp, and Bishop of Lyons, A. D. 180, using 
the. succession, of Bishops from. the apostles as an argumient 
against heretics. He says: “ We can. reckon up those whom 
the apostles, ordained. to be bishops in the several churches 
and who they were that succeeded them down, to our time.” 
And he proceeds to give us the succession from the apostles 
down ta Eleutherius, the 12th in order, who was Bishop of 
Rome when Ireneus wrote. ‘Clement of Alexandria, the cotem- 


porary of Ireneeus, enumerates thé three several and distinct 


‘orders, with: their respective offices. His words are, “ There 
are bere precepts which relate to presbyters, ottices which 
belong to bishops, and others respecting deacons.” 

‘Tertullian, a, celebrated presbyter of the church. in Africa, 
: ved at the close of. the 2nd and. inthe forepart, of the 3rd 
century. He testifies that bishops were. settled. in-his native 
land and had been so from the earliest introduction. of the gOs- 
pel into the country. Writing against heretics, he says, “ let 
them. show the order of their bishops, that by Audis Succession 
deduced from the beginning, we may see whether their first 
bishop had any of the apostles or apostolicale men, who did 
likewise persevere with the apostles, for his founder and pre- 
decessors; for thus the apostolical churches do: derive their 
succession, as the church of Smyrna from Polycarp; whom 
John the apostle placed siti deh siehasics s Rome Seon 
Clement, &c.” 

Speaking. of baptism, Tertullian says: ‘ The Bishop has the 
power of conferring baptism, and under him the presbyters 
and deacons, but not without the authority of the bishop.” — 

Origen, another famous presbyter of the same age, in his 
comment on the Loid’s prayer has these words—“ there is a 


debt due to deacons, another to presbyters, and another to 


bishops, which is” the greatest , of all. ‘and exacted by the 
Saviour of the whole church and who will seit tion y pane 
the non payment of it.” . 

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, A.D. 240.. From. the’ writings 


of this illustrious Father, we ak compile a volume upon the. 


as 


* 


subject, before'us.. He expressly refers the constitution of the 
ministry in the orders of bishops, ppisabytep and deacons to 
the will of Christ and the apostles. 

“JD. xlv. to Cornelius, bishop of Rome. “ We pape chiefly, 
my Brother; to endeavour to keep that unity which was en- 
joined by our Lord and sus ARIES to us their successors, to 
» be carefully observed by us.’ 
Ep. xvi. to Elorentius, “ Christ said to the Bracsce and by 
_ that, to all Bishops or governors of his church who succeed 
the, Apostles by vicarious ordination and are in their stead 
* He that heareth*you heareth me. ? 

Kip. Ixxx. Successio, . “ Valerian (the emperor) wrote to 
the Senate that the Bishops and the Presbyters and the Dea- 
cons should be prosecuted.” | 

Optatus Mileyitanus, A. D. 365, Bishop of Mileve, or Mela, 
in Africa, “ The church. has her several aS bishops, 
presbyters, deacons, and thé company of the faithful.” . 

“ You found in the church, deacons, presbyters, bishops : 

ou have made them laymen ; acknowledge that you have 
subverted souls.” ‘L..2. Con. Parmenianum. bie 
_.If the time allowed we might quote from Labo of Milan,, 
A. D. .370.: Jerome, A. D. 380. St. Augustin, A. D.’ 420, oom 
~ many others both Bc, and after them—particularly Eusebius, 
A. D. 320, the first ecclesiastical historian, and who has given 
us catalogues of the bishops by name, in.the order of their suc- 
eession,-in all, the principal ate from the Apostles down 
to his time—Thiey all testify, to ‘the three-fold constitution of 
the ministry and the’ authority of bishops to ordain and. to 
‘govern the church. .We might ‘quote from that very ancient 
work, certainly existing in the 3rd century, called the Apostolic 
canons,” .to prove the same thing.—From the decrees of coun- 
cils,.in ages when the faith, doctrine and order. of the Gospel 
were confessedly kept pure by the great body of the faithful. 
We might travel'along down the stréam of time, through all 
the adverse and Prosperous, conditions -of the church—when 


st «The Apostolic Canons are ‘Seney! five ecclesiastical laws or rules, profess- 
edly ‘enacted by the’ Apostles, and collécted. and preserved, by’ Clemens Romanus., 
The matter of them is ancient; for they describe the customs and institutions of 
: Christians, particularly of the Greek and. Oriental churches, in the 2nd and 3rd 
centuries. But the phraseology indicates a compiler living in the 3rd century.” 
Murdoch's Mosheim, vol, i. p. 224, v.13. (New Haven, 1832.) 


* 


a 


60°. 


oppressed and’ when protected—when maintaining purity of - 


"doctrine and practice, and when: introducing and sanctioning 


corruptions; and, all along we shall find an-accumulation of 
evidence. to the fact we have been: ‘laboring to establish, that 
Episcopacy was the settled order and’ government sf the 
church. ‘We miglit cite “abundant authorities, even the most 
learned, and distinguished of those who have rejected Episco- 
pacy to show that from the 2nd century down.to the 16th it 


*was of universal -prevalencé. in. the christian church. We 


might bring forward the Lutherans, Calvin, Beza, Melanecthon 

Wi others to prove not only the ietnlnes of Hpspeere 
‘bi the lamentable necessity which some of them pleaded: to 
justify their formation of another and different’ system” of 


church government. But what would it all avail? Men of 


this age have become wiser than. the Apostles, the Fathers 
and the Reformers—wiser and holier than: those who sealed 


their testimony ‘to Christ’s truth, and their fidelity to his cause” 


with their blood—and they ask ita are all your proofs: worth ?. 
‘The succession is incapable of: proof or it has been broken— 
~or it has been vitiated ‘and, rendered worthless by 

The common 
objection to the ~ the corruption of those through; whose. hands it 
pe Suc- has come!—Let us then meet- them on these 


1. The succession is incapable of proof. Is the testimony of . 


Clement, Ignatius, Irenzeus, ‘Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eiuse- 


bius, Ambrose, Jerome, Aas and others, sufficient to prove 
the. atthentidity: and uncorrupted. preservation of the books of 
the New Testament in their respective ages? Then why: is 


their testimony to be rejected when it equally proves the estab-* 


lishment’ and universal prevalences, of ;Episcopacy?. Is the 
New Testament to, be rejected ‘because you cannot. show by’ 
direct and positive evidence, that it was in existence every: 
yeat since’ it was writter? Then why is Episcopacy to. be 
repudiated, unless you prove. its -existence every. single year 
by positive. proof, since the death of the Apostles? But copies 
of the New Testament were ‘multiplied very soon and. spread 


over the-world-and most carefully guarded against ‘alteration. 


And so bishops were multiplied asthe faith ‘of the gospel 
spread, and their office was neither sought after; because it 


. * See Appendix A. . 


grounds and. consider these ‘their strong reasons. 


“9 


a 


. 


a 


61 


was the post of chief danger in times of persecution, ‘and in 
this state the church was till 320—and the office’ itself was 
most earefully fenced by canons against intrusion ‘into it, or 
unwarrantable assumption of its powers, -»The first of the 
Apostolical canons reads. “Let a ot be consecrated _ by 
two or three Bishops.” 
Now here is the statement of a pitino Brsth ‘The princi- 
ren, upon which this whole controversy about the Ple which may 
; : oe ee . Settle the con- 
succession turns. What is ordination? It is. troversy.’ Or- 
nothing more nor less than designation to office aearee ee 
aor the right to exercise cértain powers delega- . 
ted by the: great head of ‘the church for the-edification of his 
‘ members? You are not to imagine that, we hold that’ a sort 
of mysterious influence. or HyTBIG ‘virtue has *been stream- 
ing down from the hands of Bishops upon‘the heads of those 
whom ‘they have ordained:in all’ past ages, and that this is 


' the Apostolical Succession. No! It is simply the right to 


exercise certain functions, certified by its ‘proper evidence— 
ordination is ‘@ thing hahanvita openly and publicly in which 
ordinarily many persons take part. But the ‘Apos stolical canon 
requires that a bishop shall» be ordained by ‘at ‘least two or 
three bishops,’ and the proof of this fact, im the absence’ of- 
miracles; is.the proper certificate to all persons that the person 


ordained is invested -with that delegated authority, which he. 


could not of tight assume. In short, ordination is the regular 
induction to office by lawful Mareniey in opposition to its un- 


authorised and arrogant assumption. .Now it is clear that, 


such a fact is'as capable of proof as any ether fact, And con- 
sequently a succéssion of erdinations is of far more easy proot 


—than lineal succession—such for example as the sticcession _ 


of the.Aaronic priesthood.. For the ordination of a bisho 
would only take place:at the end of his. predecessor’s life— 
consequently the proofs. would have to be produced: at long 


intervals—after considerable periods of time had elapsed, and | 


‘the longer a Bishop lived, the féwer.would be the number of 
links in the chain of succession. Thus the Episcopate of the 
late Bishop White of Pennsylvania extended through fifty. 
‘years’; he is therefore the only link between John Moore, arch- 
Dishop of ellie, ore Feb. 12, 1775 and Jackson 


% 


va 


than natural. 


és eae : ie  ' 
. s. o 


a - a’ 62 


Kemper, the present Bishoy of isioac ednseerated by Bishop 

White, Septaad, 1835. -And’hence, - -» cme 

It is far easier to,trace the Episcopal succes- 
' Proof of offici- 

a descent’ more /Stor thromgh hundreds of. years, ‘than it is for 

easily,» proved any living man to, trace his descent to his. great 

grandfather: ‘The truth of lineal descent, in 


every step, is dependent upon the veracity of a single’ witness 


and that-is the mother in each case: Whereas the truth 


© 


and certainty of the Episcopal succession are made:evident by 


the testimony of many Witnesses to a public transaction, which 


is made matter of public record. No one qtestions the succes- 


sion of the, Aaronic priesthood which we all know was ttans- | 
mitted by carnal descent; although the truth of that succes- ’ 
sion depended in each daddenrt upon the single testimony of .a 
woman as to.a point of which no human being besides herself . 
could Have any certain ‘knowledge. And yet, with ‘such a 
fact as this admitted and wunqtestioned, men who stand up 
before the people to argue questions of theology, will in the 
face of day, gravely assert that thre Apostolicat succession is 
incapable ‘of proof! 

Is it morally possible, think you, that any man could suc- 


-cessfully. claim and exercise thé Episcopal office in the Catho- 


lic Church of this country or in England at this day, without 
showing that he had received, Kipiscopal consecration cr ordi- 
nation? You know well what would be the fate of any such - 
effort—you know that it would meet with the ridicule and 


contempt which have. attended the foolish attempts of Dashiell 
and George-M. West, to set up-a>pseudg-Episcopacy. If then 
such a thing be morally impossible: now, let those who declaim 


against the apostolical succession, show how ,it was merally © 
possible in any preceding age Bi the church, acting under 


identically the same. rule of Painaeh or consecration. The 
rulé of the church of the’ first three centuries. was, as we have 


already shdwn, that “a Bishop be ordained by two or three 
Bishops ”—this rule is repeated at the general council of Nice, 
325, A. D.—only ' with its provisions ¢ extended so as to rip t 
Hpiscopal consecrations more difficult of performance, thereby 
increasing the evidence to the fact in each case, in these words: 
A Bishop ought td be constituted by all ‘the Bishops of the 


- province, but if this be not practicable by reason of urgent. 


63: 


necessity, three rust’ by-all, means meet together, and with 


the consent of those that are absent, let them perform, the ordi- 
nation” Such was the ropnjatiotbestablished in every church 


‘throughout the world—in the British, the Gallican, the Spanish, 


the Roman, the Carthaginian, the Alexandrian, clue Antiochean — 
and all others. :Such is nearly. the identical rile that vpreysts 
in the Protestant Episcopal. Church in the United State 
Trace the lines of Episcopal succession wherever you please, 
that at Canterbury, at Arles or Lyons in France, or at Rome, 


_or at Constantinople, and what does. it prove? Why, that these 
churches never allowed: of any other than Episcopal conse- 


’ eration or ordination. If then the rejectors of Episcopacy will 


take any of these lists and’ show where it i§ defective—if they 
will show us cause. to ‘believe that in any one case or in any 


number of cases, the rule established: throughout the church 
has been tvidlated or neglected or evaded, we shall then have 


: before us a matter admitting of ate cmnidiondlsia until this is 


no 


ed 


‘the Episcopal succession, they -say, has «been. 


‘referred to the alleged elevation ‘of a woman 


doné, "we shall take their biotal declarations about the Ejpisco- 
pal succession, as naked:assertions, which can only be met by 


positive and direct and unequivocal denial. (Appendix B.). But 


a) 


The story e 
broken. © When asked in. what instaneé, we. are ° pope Joait does 


not effect this 
question at all. 


named Joan, to the Papacy in the 9th century. 


- Now be it observed here that whether the story be true or 
false, it does: not invalidate the succession even as maintained 


by Romanists—much less does it oppugn the strength of the 


argument and evidence which sustains the succession in the 


Episcopal churches which have’ dissented from Rome. I am 


“in no way conceried. to prove or disprove the truth of the story, 
‘otherwise than as every man’ is concerned to. know -the icer- 


tainty of history; for as I shall show the succession for which 


we contend, although it is indirectly connected withthe Ro- 


aT, 


man church, as ehiistiabiy itself--at one time was, yet it does 
not run thighs the line of Roman Pontiffs at all_—But let us 
consider the story itself. Mosheirp;* the ecclesiastical histo- 


nit ‘Gieseler, who cares little ie the Managaiie succession, sliows that ‘te alleged 


ye? of Joan, is not only apocryphal, but chronologically impossible, there being 
8 


carce any interval between’ LEO IV. and BENEDICT III. See Cunningham's 


Translation, vol. ii. p. 20. (Philadelphia edition.) - 


v4 : us S éF us s 


a) 


a 


. 
¥ 


” 


‘rian, whoke eiuthority in this. case at least will ‘not» be. ques- 
a el says that “ between the pontificate of Leo IV. who 
died in the year, 855, and that of Benedict IL: a’ certain 
woman, who had the art to. disguise her ‘sex for a sonsider-. 


"able. time,.és- said by ‘learning, ‘genius and dexterity, to have. 


‘made soni her way to the papal chair, and to have governed 
the chia with the title and dignity of” pontitt ’ about two 
years.” After stating that this story gave rise to long sand 
~ embittered discussion, some asserting and others denying ‘its 
truth, he expresses his opinion, that some unusual event had 
accnrtne at Rome, and concludes by. observing, that “ what it 
was that, gaye rise to this story is yet to be discovered, and is 
likely to remainso.” According to, history the whole rests 


‘upon a say so—it is at best but-a ‘flimsy argument that can 


‘be constructed. lipon so insecure a’ foundation. But take it as: 
all true, out and out, does it invalidate the Expiscopal succes- 
“sion ? | Not at all. na first of all, if it. did, it must.be shown’ 
that the Popes of Rome consecrate ishons_awhigh they do 
not—and secondly, it must:be shewn that during the two years” 


ae 


in which Joan is said to have swayed the papal sceptre, all the - * 


_ bishops in the Roman’Church must have’ died—and that Swat 
herself consecrated successors to them-—and this. would indeed 


_churehes, that all the bishops the, world over must have died 
“ith ‘those two years—that the churches’ in, Britain,’ France, Ger- 


m ‘many, Italy; Spain, in all Greece, in all Africa, in all the East, 


lost all their pipes within. these two years when Joan was 


_in the papal chair. Now, willing as we are to-stretch the line , 


of credulity to the measure of other, men’ s demands in. order to 
please them, this is rather further than in-reason or in common 
sense we: can \go. The truth is, that those who have thrown 
ee Expiscopacy, feel bound to show, reason. for abandoning 


_ a 


. an institution. so ancient and attended by’so many “marks of Re 


its seriptural authority; and being hard pressed. for arguments, — 
: c 

they have caught at this story about Pope Joan, which com- 
bines the. Pesible: with the. ridiculous, to demolish the whole — 


theory, as they. think, of the apostolical succession: They 
know well that tiidioule often prevails, when solid. arguments 


are lacking, and boldly asserting that a woman was Once Kore, 


ms to 


have broken the chain of Roman.succession. But it must be , 
‘ shown, thirdly, in order to, invalidate the succession im other 


i 65 


ask what is such a succession worth ?—as though they had 
destroyed the apostolical succession by showing that a link 
was lacking in the Roman chain! But I would ask what 
_ becomes of the succession in the British church ?—The bishops 
of that church were not.consecrated by the pope of Rome— 
the same may be asked of any other church ?2—what becomes 
of the succession in Spain, in France, in Sweden, Denmark, 
Norway, in Greece, in other Eastern churches? Why, had 
_ the Pope undertaken to’ consecrate bishops for all these, he 
~ might have abandoned every thing else, and the triple crown 
had sat heavily indeed on his brows—too heavily indeed for 
any mortal to bear! ‘The truth is, as. before Theswioe 
stated, the Pope does not consecrate bishops at sion of bishops 
all—unless it be some in Rome or parts adja- not through the 
‘cent, of which I am not certainly informed one Popes of Rome. 
way or the other,—and therefore the validity of the succession 
‘has nothing to do with the question who is Pope, or whether 
_ there be any Pope at all. One remark more before quitting 
this part of the subject: I would ask those who are so. fond of 
~ quoting Pope Joan and her reign of two years to destroy the 
succession, whether the usurpation of Queen Athaliah for six 
“years of the throne of David—and the- destruction. by her of 
all the seed royal but Joash, vitiated the promise of God to 
'« David that a man should not fail him to sit upon his throne ! 
' Did the intrusion of Athaliah for six years destroy or break 
the line of succession of kings to come from his loins? or in- 
validate God’s promise? - | 
But after all, say the opponents of the apostolical succession, 
although you make out your case by historical testimony, yet 
the succession comes through channels so impure that we can- 
not receive it. This objection is grounded on the eratuitous 
‘assumption, that the succession must be traced through the 
- Roman pontiffs. Now, as already stated, the succession does 
| genet run in this channel, because the pontiff does not conse- 


erate. We will state here upon the authority of the Romish 
canon law, what power the Pope does claim in reference to 
bishops, that we may see how far his pretensions interfere, 
if good, with the validity of the succession. “'The Pope holds 
the place of God in the earth, so that he can confer ecclesi- 
astical benefices without dimunition.” In opposition to this 


* 
g 


ao * ° 


claim, Henry 8th proclaimed himself head of the realm and 
church of England. Again. “'T’he translation, the deposition 
or resignation of a bishop, is reserved to the Roman Pontiff . 
‘alone, not so much by any canonical constitution as by the 
‘divine institution.” It is hardly necessary to remind you that 
‘this claim was. long and successfully resisted by the British 
church—and that it was ever opposed by the Greek and orien- 
tal churches—It has ever been the policy of the Pope to dimin- 
ish the power of bishops, and nothing has he labored more to 
destroy than an independent Episcopacy. No barrier stands 
so much in his way now as the. Episcopacy of the English 
church—and that of the independent Eastern dioceses; the 
independence of dioceses presents, in fact, the most effectual 
check to that consolidation of power which Rome has. long 
endeavored to effect by concentrating all rule and authority 
in the hands of the Pope. Our own system of church govern- 
ment in the United States is a confederacy ‘of independent 
‘dioceses—and like the state sovereignties, by having each its 
own governor and legislative assembly or council, effectually 
counteracts’ the tendency to consolidation. Once more, the 
anon law says: “As the translation, the deposition and 
resignation of bishops, so likewise the confirmation of those 
who are elected, after their eléction, is reserved to the Roman 
Pontiff alone, by reason of the spiritual bond.” Not one word 
about consecration. ‘These are the claims of the Pope—ex- 
orbitant enough as all will allow: but remember-that these 
claims were not always admitted, and had they been so, we. 
see not how the admitting of them -can destroy or corrupt the 
succession. For although.the bishops in nearly the whole 
of the western church did at one time yield to and acknow- 
ledge the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, still that did not 
deprive or divest them of the right and authority to ordain— 
a right’ which they always claimed in virtue of their office, 
and which they always continued to exercise. It was. only 
so late as the council of Trent in the 16th century, that the 
question was agitated whether the bishops held their office 
“de jure divino:” or “de jure pontifico”—i. e. from Christ 
or the pope. The archbishop of Grenada strenously main- 
tained in the council, that “wheresoever a bishop. shall be, 
‘whether in Rome or in Augubium, all are of the same merit, 


67 , 
eae . , 
and of the same priesthood, and all successors of the Apostles. 
He inveighed against those who said St. Peter had ordained 
the other apostles, bishops. He admonished the council to 
study the scriptures and observe that power to teach through- 
out the world, to administer the sacraments’ and to govern the 
church, is equally given to all. And therefore as the Apostles 
had authority, not from Peter, but from Christ, so the succes- 
sors of the Apostles have not power from Peter, but from Christ 
himself.” ‘The archbishop of Paris manfully upheld the same 


- Sentiments, nor did they meet with opposition in the council 


but from the Monks, Jesuits, Legates and Cardinals. It is 
through these, who are not of the regular order of the clergy, 
that the Pope has ever endeavored to enlarge and strengthen 
his power. ‘The conclave which elects the Pope 
‘ ‘ ‘ ; F , By whom is 
consists of seventy cardinals in all, of which six the Pope him- 
only are bishops, fifty of them are priests and the Self elected? 
rest deacons: from which it is clear that he relies much more 
upon the presbytery, than any thing else, for the gift and main- 
tenance of his authority. | og > 
- But suppose for argument’s sake that the succession does 
come through the Roman church—that the Pope did confirm 
the election of bishops, and order their consecration by other 
bishops, which is the utmost that can. be said, does this invali- 
date or-vitiate the succession? Why, we might just as well 
say that the pure faith or doctrine of the scriptures, which all 
the reformed churches now teach, is. corrupted and. vitiated, 
because it passed through the hands of the Romanists. ‘They 
had in ‘their keeping at one time the Bible, to the very same 
extent that they had in their keeping the power of ordination. 
Tf the word of salvation has been transmitted to us through 


their instrumentality, and we now have it in its simplicity and 


ae 


integrity, why may we not have the authority to administer 


that word, transmitted through the same channel, in its integ- 
rity also? Werte the doctrine and sacranients of Christ’s reli- 
gion corrupted by the church of Rome ?—so was the order of 
the gospel. Were these corruptions rejected and thrown off 
at the reformation, in respect to the faith of the gospel?—so 
were they also in respect to the order of the Gospel ministry. 
So that there exists not one reason for rejecting Episcopacy 
because of its’ having passed through the Roman church, that 


68 


does not apply with equal strength on the same grounds, for 
rejecting the Gospel itself. — 
The idea that the succession is vitiated by its 
The succes- ’ : ; 
sion not pollut- having come through an impure channel, gains 
ed by the me- no countenance whatever from the sentiments 
dium through } : : 
which it is and practice of men in other things. ‘Thus the 
brought down truth of God was not less his truth because it 
was proclaimed by Balaam and afterwards by 
Judas. ‘The sacrament of baptism.is not less a sacrament to 
him -who receives it, because the minister who performs it, 
shall afterwards prove to be an unholy and wicked man. His 
- wickedness furnishes a just reason for depriving him of office, 
but affects not the validity of the act which he executed, by 
virtue ‘of the delegated authority with which he was invested. 
If it were otherwise—if our faith were directed to the minis- 
ter and not to Christ, the institutor of the ordinance—and if 
we cannot be certain of receiving the sacraments until posi- 
tively certified and assured of the piety of him who adminis- 
ters them, we never can be certain of receiving them at all. 
Again, take the position that the channel of transmission cor- 
rupts that. which descends through it, and what do you make 
of the holy Saviour of the world? 'T'race the line of succession 
through which the promised deliverer, the holy seed of salva- 
tion, came according to the flesh, and then ask yourselves, are 
you prepared to admit the principles contended for? ‘There is 
in the line of the Saviour’s ancestry, Rahab, the-harlot—Tha- 
mar, who sought and obtained incestuous connexion with her 
own father-in-law.—T here is Ruth, the Moabitess, the offspring 
of Lot’ and his own daughter—there is Bathsheba, the wife 
of Uriah the Hittite, who admitted the adulterous embraces of 
David. If then the promised seed of. redemption was neither 
tainted nor destroyed by transmission through this line of an- 
cestral succession—and it would be impious to say so—why 
should it be supposed that the spiritual seed for the ministra- 
tion of salvation has suffered injury or been destroyed, because 
some of the agents for transmitting it have shown themselves 
as unworthy of the high honor vouchsafed to them, as those 
pointed out in the line iv the Saviour’s ancestry ? 
But let us carry the principle contended for, to its draeea 
results, by applying it to those who most Monel urge its force. 


69 


The bishops of the British church were in communion with 
the Church of Rome, and Rome being a corrupt church, there- 
fore ordination by the British bishops ‘is worth nothing. We 
might ask here, what then was the worth of Mr. Wesley’s ordi- 
nation, since Hie received it from a British bishop ? But we 
will let that pass for the present. 

The great plea which the Methodists put in to "The Metho- 
justify theli separation from the church, and their Ree ot 
setting up a different communion, was that the 

Church of England was a corrupt church. In the letter of 
the Methodist bishops to their members prefixed to their book 
of discipline, they quote the words of the Messrs. Wesley, say- 
ing, “ God then (1737) thrust them’ out to raise a holy people.” 
In ch. i. s. 1. they speak of being convinced “ that there was a 
great deficiency of vital religion in the Church of England 
in America.” 'The book of ‘asc sHne proceeds to state that 
Mr. John Wesley did “solemnly set apart by the imposition 
of his hands, and prayer,» Thomas Coke, Doctor of civil law, 
late of Jesus College, in the University of Oxford, and a 
Presbyter of the Church of England, for the E'piscopal 
office.”* Now if the plea of corruption can be made good 
against the Church of England, and there was.“a great defi- 
ciency of vital piety” in “h so that the Methodists felt con- 
Stramed to withdraw and set up for themselves, I desire to ask 
whether Mr. Wesley’s maintaining communion with this cor- 
-rupt church, deficient as it was “in vital piety,” and his con- 
M, tinuing in that communion to the day of his death, and his 
declaring that he believed it the purest national church in the 
_ world—whether all this does not destroy the validity of his 
ordination of 'Thomas Coke, L. L. D., Fellow of Jesus College, 
ee &e. dc. &c. In a word, if communion with Rome 
~ destroy, because of Rome’s corruptions, the ministerial author- 
ity—does not the communion of Mr. Wesley with the Church 
of England destroy, because of its corruptions, his authority to 
ordain also? If the principle contended for avail in one case, 
why not in both? If not in both, why in either? 

- We are not concerned to answer these questions, Brethren: 

Nor are we disposed to press the subject further at) present 

upon the attention of those whose sensibility is the more sanor 


~ 


** See Appendix C. 


P ) 
70 
excited, Brion investigation is directed to the weak points of 
their system, The man whose title deeds are defective,,above 
all others, is sensitive to any, intimation of a flaw of which 
he is Banralle conscious himself. And so it is in religious — 
systems: the upholders of them know their defects, and these 
they keep out of view and manifest any thing’ but a gracious 
temper towards those who would examine into them. \ 
A summary - In conclusion, we would just remind you, that 
of the argu- we have showed from scripture that the office of 
ment: the points Rs ‘ : 
raised and de- the ministry is a delegated authority, and that the 
aoe ministry of the Apostolic church consisted of three 
orders, We have endeavored to establish by argument, that 
a ministry thus constituted was left, by the apostles in the 
church when they quitted the earth. We have arrayed: be- 
fore you the testimony of credible: witnesses to prove that this 
ministry, So constituted, was continued in the church till such 
time as is ace on all hands, that it prevailed uni- 
versally and without a single exception in any country. We 
have argued, and as we think conclusively, that 1t was morally 
impossible for the chain-of Episcopal succession to be broken, 
and that any such alleged interruption is destitute of proof. 
We have considered the objection grounded on: the papal .cor- 
ruptions to vitiate of invalidate the succession, and shown that 
it is without force. It may bé asked then whether, if the posi- 
tion we take upon this subject be made good, we do not wn- 
church all other denominations of Christians and leave them 
DoEpiscopa- £0 the uncovenanted mercies of God? I reply, 
lians unchurch in the first place, we do not wachurch them. It 
ce ae is an inference which those make who, by a vol- 
untary act of their own, have separated themselves from that 
order of the gospel hile we Have endeavored to prove was 
established in the primitive church. It is therefore unjust. and 
ungenerous to charge us with consequences which do not flow 
from any act of ours, but which are the legitimate results of 
their own deliberate proceedings. We have endeavored in 
every possible way consistent with christian charity, to prevent 
these divisions—and: come what may—charge upon us what- 


or act, give any countenance or sanction, to the infidel maxim 
that division into sects is advantageous to the cause of truth 
en J 


* Mae ‘ 


TE" 


and piety, while the affecting prayer of Christ for the unity 


ef his church, shall be received and acknowledged as part 
and parcel of divine revelation. “Neither pray I for these 


alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through 


their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in 
me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in. us: that the 
world may believe that thou hast sent me.”* No, we shall do 
all we can. by declaring the truth in the love of it, and by fair 
argument—by instructing those who oppose themselves to us, 


in the spirit of "meekness—and by endeavoring to keep the 


unity.of the spirit in the bond of peace, to bring all believers 
to “that agreement in the faith and knowledge of, God, and 
that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, that there be 
left no place among them, either for error’in religion, or for 
Viciousness -in. life.’”’+ 


How far the various bodies of professed chris- If we must. 


express an o- 
tians around us, united under rules and regula- neat Ss ott: 


tions for their government, which they have «itis this. 
drawn from the word of God, and sanctioned by what they 
honestly; believe. to be a just and fair interpretation, of its 
meaning—how far they are to be regarded as churches of 
Christ, I shall not undertake to say. I honestly think it is a 
matter admitting of serious question. While I freely concede 
that some of them preach the faith of the gospel, and that this 
faith, wherever received, will manifest, and does in them mani- 


fest, its appropriate fruits in righteousness—in charity—and in 
_ hope—-still candor obliges me to declare, that in the exercise of 
the best reason and judgment which God has given me, and 

enlightened by all the information which the most diligent 
-search has afforded to my mind, I think them destitute of an 
essential feature or mark of the visible Catholic church. of 


Christ: that)is, a ministry, deriving authority to act in the 


appointments of religion, from the Apostles. At the, same 


time, I grant that their ecclesiastical organizations have all the 


force and obligation, on those who Naas submitted to their au- 


thority, which the most solemn vows and engagements can 
bring upon the soul. "heir ordinances, administered by the 
ministry which they have—such for example, as baptism and 
the Lord’s. supper—are to those who receive them, with the 


understanding they have of their nature and apiearone prop-_ 


® St. John xvii. 20, 21. + Ordinal. 


beg" 


oo 


erly sacraments—just as much so.as an oath taken before a 
_ private citizen, instead of a magistrate or judge, is binding on 
the conscience of him who takes it—See Appendix D. 
* And now is there just reason to charge upon such sentiments 
the odium of illiberality and uncharitableness? » It is often said 
that the’ differences among christians are unimportant—not of 
that grave and serious character to cause emulations, strifes and 
divisions. If so, why do not those who have gone out from us, 
return? and why ‘should every attempt like the present, to 
state the true grounds of difference be frowned upon as ungra- 
cious and be met by the weapons which calumny employs against 


stubborn facts, honest statements and candid and fair argu-) 


ments? We have no wish whatever to multiply causes of 
difference between ourselves and other denominations of chris- 
tians. On the contrary, the terms of communion which the 
FEipiscopal church requires are so free and liberal, as more _fre- 
quently to give others occasion to charge her with laxity, than 
afford fair opportunity to them, as she justly does, to commend 
her catholic spirit—-she offers no disputed points in theology as 
tests to her members of the soundness of their christian charac- 
ter, but stating the facts and doctrines of the Apostles’ creed as 
the articles of her faith, and inculcating charity, she prays: for 
“all who profess and call themselves christians, that they may 
be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, 
in the bond of peace and in righteousness of life.” She goes 
further, and in accordance with the Apostle’s directions that 
prayers and supplications be offered up for all men—the lan- 
‘guage of her liturgy is that it “may please God to have mercy 
upon all men.” She stops not here, but in obedience to the 
blessed Saviour’s injunctions and in the spirit of his meek and 
lowly example, iustructs.us to ‘pray “that it may please thee 
to forgive our enemies, persecutors and ies. and to turn 
their hearts.” , 

Such is the-spirit 1 pray may rule ever,more in my heart-- 
and. while I'shall “contend earnestly for the faith once deliv- 
ered to the saints,” and “speak the truth boldly as I-ought to 
speak,” God being my helper, I shall endeavor to utter not a 
word or sentiment Inconsistent with the spirit of sincerity and 
truthin which that prayer should be offered. 


APPENDIX. 


A. p. 60. “TI allow that each state ought to have one bishop 
of its own by divine right ; which I show from Paul, saying 
—‘ for this cause left I ‘thee in Crete”” M. Luther. 

“The bishops might easily retain the obedience due unto 

| them, if they urged us not to keep those traditions which we 
cannot keep with a good conscience.” Melancthon. 

“We have often protested that we do greatly approve the 
ecclesiastical polity and degrees in the church, and as much 
as lieth in us, do desire to conserve them.” cea stn! 

“I would to God 1t lay in me to restore the government of 
bishops. For I see what manner of church we shall have, 
the ecclesiastical polity being dissolved. I do see that here- 
after will grow up in the ah ath a greater tyranny than there 
ever was before.” Melancthon. 

“ By what right or law may we dissolve the ecclesiastical 
polity, if the. Bistichs will grant to us, that which in reason 
they ought to grant?’ And if it were lawful for us to do so, 
papecty it were not expedient. gay was ever of .this 

. . opinion.” Melancthon. 

~.. ““Zuingle hay sent Hither in print, his confession of faith. 

» You would say neither more nor less, than that he is not in ~ 
his senses. At one stroke, he would abolish all ceremonies, 
and he would have no Bishops.” Melancthon. 

“If they will give us such an hierarchy, in which the 
bishops have arg a pre-eminence as that they do not refuse 
to be subject unto Christ, I will confess that ther y are worthy 
of all anathemas, if any such there be, who will not reve- 
rence it, and submit themselves to ye the utmost obe- 
dience.” Calvin. 

Of Calvin’s Episcopal opinions, Mons. Daille, a French 
protestant divine thus writes—“ Calvin honored all bishops that 
were not subjects of the Pope, such as were the -prelates of 


England. We confess that the foundation of their charge is 
10 


74 


good and lawful, established by the Apne according to the 
command of Christ.” Bingham’s French Church’s Apology 
for the Church of England. 

Mons. De L’Angle, another divine of the same church, thus 
writes to the bishop of London: “Calvin, in his treatise of the 
necessity of the Reformation, makes no difficulty to say, that 
if there should be any so wnreasonable as to refuse the com- 
munion of a church that was pure in its worship and doctrine, 
and not to submit himself with respect to its government, under 
pretence, that it had retained an Episcopacy qualified as yours 
is, there would be no censure or rigor of discipline that ought 
not to be exercised upon them.” Be eacars dnbeasonahie 
ness of separation, at the end.“ 

“ Tt was essential that by the perpetual ordination of God, 
it was, it is, and it will be necessary, that some one in the 
presbytery, chief both in place and dignity, should preside to 
govern -the proceedings s, by that right which is. gwen him 
of God.” Beza. 

Ln tay writings touching chureh government, I ever ‘im- 
pugned.the Remish hierar che but never intended to touch or 
impugn the ecclesiastical polity of the church of Hngland.s 
Beza. ¢ 

If there are any, as you will not easily persuade me, who 
would reject the whole order cf:bishops, God forbid that any 
man in his. senses should assent to their madness—* Let her 
(Church of England) enjoy that singular blessing (Episcopacy) 
of God, which I pray may be perpetual” Beza. 

“ By the perpetual observation of all churches, even from the 
Apostles’ times, we sce, that it seemed eu to the Holy 
Ghost, that among Re ee to whom the procuration of 
churches was" ee committed, there should be one that 


should have the care or charge of divers churches, and the . 


whole ministry committed to him; and by reason of that 
charge he was above the rest; and therefore the name of 
bishop was attributed pectin to those chief rulers.” Bis 
cer de cura, &e. 

Of the Episcopate, therefore, that is, as superiority of one 
- Pastor above the rest, we first peeing that it is repugnant to 
no divine law. If any one think otherwise, that is, if any one 
condemn the whole ancient church of folly or even of impiety, 


’ 
) 
. ; tp 
." ine % 


Pi 4 * 


alk 


eee, 


re 


the burden of pioof beyond doubt lies upon him; &c. The 
very ministry instituted by the Apostles sufficiently proves that 
equality of the Ecclesiastical offices was not commanded by 
Christ. We, therefore, first-lay down this, which is undoubt- 
edly: true, that it, (viz: the ‘Episcopate or superiority of one 
Pastor above the rest,) neither can or ought to be found fault 
with; in which we have agreeing with us, Zanchius, Chemni- 
tius, Tenarnains, Calvin, Melancthon, Byer. and even Beza, 
as thu far he says, that one certain person chosen by the judg- 
ment of the rest of his co-presbyters was anal,9 over the pres- 
bytery and was permanently so. 

Another is, that that Episcopate, which we treat of, was 
received by the universal church. .This appears from all the 
councils, whose authority, now likewise is very great among the 
pious. It appears also. from an examination of the, councils 
either national or provincial, of which there is almost none 


‘which does not show manifest signs of Kpiscopal superiority. 


All the fathers, without exception, testify the same, of .whom 
he who shows least defference to the Episcopate is Jerome, 
himself not. a bishop, but a presbyter. "Therefore the testimony 
of him alone.is sufficient :. “It was decreed through the whole 
world that one chosen from the presbyters should be set over 
the rest, to whom all care of the church should belong.” In- 
deed this error of Aerius was condemned by the whole church, 
that he said that a Presbyter ought to be distinguished from 
a bishop by no difference. .Jerome himself, in’ reply to him, 
who had written that there is no difference between a bishop 
and a presbyter, answered, this is unskilfully enough to make 
shipwreck in port, as it is said. Even Zanchius acknowl- 
edges the agreement of the whole church in this matter. 

The third thing is this, that the Episcopate had its com- 
mencement in the time of tha Apostles. The catalogues of the 
bishops in Irenzus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, md others, 
all of which begin in the Apostolic age, testify this. But to 
refuse credit in a historical matter to so great authors, and so 
unanimous among themselves, is not the part of any but an 
irreverent ahd se aeben dafpiition. For that is just as if you 
should deny that it was true, what all histories of the omans 
declare, that the consulate began from the expelled ‘Tarquins. 
But let us hear Jerome again: “At Alexandria,” he says, “from 


16 


Mark the Evangelist the presbyters always named one chosen 
from themselves, placed in a higher degree, bishop.” 

Mark died in the 8th year of Nero: to whom succeeded 
Anianus, to Anianus* Abilius, to Abilius Cerdo, the Apostle 
John being yet alive. After the death of James, Simeon had 
the Episcopate of Jerusalem: after the death of Peter and Paul, 
Linus, Anacletus, and Clemens had the Roman; and Euodius 
and Ignatius, that of Antioch, the:same Apostle still living. 
This ancient history is surely not to be despised, to which 
Ignatius himself, the contemporary of the Apostles, and Justin 
Martyr and Ireneeus, who followed him next, afford the most 
open testimony which there is no need to transcribe. ‘ Now 
indeed, says Cyprian, ‘bishops are appointed in all the 
provinces and in every city.’ 

Let the fourth be, that this bishop was approved of by the 
Divine law, or (as Bucer says) it seemed good to the Holy 
Spirit that one among) the presbyters should have special 
charge. ‘The divine revelation affords to this assertion an 
argument not to be ‘withstood; for Christ himself commands 
it to be written to the seven angels of the Asiatic churches. 
Those who understand the churches themselves by the angels 
manifestly contradict the sacred writings. For the candle- 
sticks are the churches, says Christ: but the stars are the 
angels of the seven churches. It is wonderful whither the 
humor of contradicting may not carry men, when they dare to 
confound those things which the Holy Spirit so evidently dis- 
tinguished. We do not deny that the name of angel may be 
suited to every Pastor in a certain general signification: but 
here it is manifestly written to one in every church. Was 
there therefore only ‘one~Pastor in every city? No, indeed. 
For even in Paul’s time many presbyters were appointed at 
Ephesus to feed the church of God. (Acts xx. 17, 18.) Why, 
therefore, are letters sent to one person in every church, if no 
one had a certain peculiar and eminent function?” After 
showing that some of the ancient Fathers, and among the Re- 
formers, Bullinger, Beza, Rainoldus, agree with him in the 
representation: he says, “Christ, therefore, writing to those 
bishops, thus eminent among the clergy, undoubtedly approved 
of this Episcopal superiority.” Grotius. 

To the statements and argument of this learned presbyterian, 


17 

we need not add any thing: They must be hard indeed to con- 
vince who are proof against the facts and reasoning of Grotius. 

The foregoing extracts are quoted from a small but exceed- 
ingly valuable compilation by the bishop of New-Jersey, en- 
titled “a word for the church,” to which the reader is “ benev- 
olently” recommended. 'To obtain it, will cost very little, and 
its perusal may confer lasting and inappreciable. benefit. 

‘ “i 

B. p. 63. “ Despairing of justifying their ordinations from 
. the scriptures, the resort of dissenters is to a denial of the epis- 
copal succession. But by this very denial they show how im- 
portant itis. Now that there has been a body of men in the 
world called bishops ever since the days of the Apostles, is as 
undeniable as that there has been a body of christians. One 
may as well deny the continuance of the human race, or the 
succession of the generations of men as the continuance and 
-suceession of bishops. ‘The succession of bishops as a body of 
men, then, has never been broken. But it is alledged that the 
succession has been vitiated by irregular RAmissions, thus 
violating the law upon which it depends. But what if the 
allegation were true? Suppose there have been men profess- 
ing and acknowledged to be members of the christian church, 
who have never been baptized, is not he who is truly baptized, 
now amember of the church? Suppose that men have occa- 
sionally assumed the office of a presbyter, and been allowed 
to exercise the duties and functions of that office without any 
ordination at all, is he who is regularly ordained in this age 
any the less a penal on that account? Does the invalidity 
of his orders or the fact of his having had no orders, annihi- 
late the order in the ministry to which he pretended to belong ? 
Most certainly not. Neither could the fact (if there were such 
an one) that some men have been received as bishops without 
a regular ordination to the Episcopate, — “destroy the order of 
bpighaa ps, or make him who is regularly, ordained in this age 
any the less a bishop, than if no such irregularity had ever 
occurred. ‘ But suppose they could prove that the order was 
lost, what would they gain? Simply a freedom from the 
restraint of God’s laws, a liberty to follow the decrées and 
desires of their own hearts. 


78 


But let us haste to notice the eis breaks in the snc- 
cession. 4, 
1. “Tt is not enough to state the fact in a general manner; 
you must trace the succession in every individual case. , You 
are a priest: I go to you for baptism, for instance. I must 
closely examine your authority: by whom were you ordained ? 
By the Bishop of Vermont. By whom was the Bishop of 
Vermont ordained? (consecrated.) And by whom was that 
individual ordained? and so on. Are you prepared to answer 
these questions? Have you the documents to prove your legit- 
imate pastoral descent from Jesus Christ? Can you. establish 
-your ecclesiastical pedigree beyond all controversy? I ask 

nothing unnecessary. 

1. To this, I reply that it is mot necessary to trace the suc- 
cession in every individual case, because every bishop had 
three to ordain him, and they had nine, and so on. Thus 
the individual succession. becomes, in two or three genera- 
tions, merged in the general succession, and if there were but 
one sound and valid Bishop in a nation or a church a few 
generations back, all their bishops would be sound and -valid 
now. For instance: it appears from an actual comparison of 
the table: of the American succession, that if only one of the 
bishops in this country forty years ago had been valid, all would 
be so now; for they can all trace their succession to him. 

2. I can give the succession in the individual case, taking 
only one in the line, whereas there are in fact never less than 
three. Hopkins, GriswoLtp, Wuire—Moore of Canterbury, 
in England; thence by the line of Canterbury, eighty-seven 
names, to Aucusting, A. D. 596. From Augustine, through 
Lyons, to Potycarp of Smyrna, thirty-one names, and Poly- 
carp was ordained by Sv. Jon, and St. John by Jzsus 
Curist. Again, by the same line, I go back to T'heodore, 
ninth archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 688, eighty-nine names 
from ‘Bishop Hopkins: and thence, by the Bishops of Rome, 
seventy-six names, to Sr. Perer, who. was ordained by 
"Curist. Again, by the same line, I go back to Cuiceny, | 
A. D. 1414, twenty-nine names; wid thence by St. Davids 
to Davin, A. D. 519, sixty-six names, thence by Jerusalem, to 
Sr. James and the rest of rue Aposriss, fifty-one names, | 

Thus Bishop Hopkins, from whom d had my orders is the 


+ 


» 


s 


: 


79 


121st from Sr. Joun, giving about 14 years for each bishop: 
165th from Sr. Perer, about 10 years for each bishop: 146th 
from Str. James, and the rest of the apostles a at Jerusalem about 
12 years for Seas bishop. 

I have omitted the names in each line of succession for 
brevity’s sake; but if my friends’ incredulity will not be over- 
come without, I will furnish every one.” 

REV. W. D. WILSON. 

Banner of the Cross, June, 10, 1843. 

“But the question is often cl can the succession be 


traced up step by step to the Apostles? Is there no breach in 


it which would invalidate the whole? The Master’s promise 
‘lo! Tam with you alway, even to the end of the world,’ is 
enough to assure the humble believer, that no such oh 
has occurred, or can occur to the end of the world. Besides, 
the utmost pains have always been taken in every branch af 
the church to keep the succession regular and pure. Diocesan 
succession’ and Apostolical succession are two distinct things. 
As in Maryland, for example, we have had four Bishops, but 


‘no one of them has been concerned in the consecration of his 


successor. -So that a vacancy or interregnum in a particular 
Diocese—or in. fifty or an hundred dioceses, even of long con- 
tinuance, does not affect the succession. in the least. One of 
the Apostolical canons enjoins, that two or three Bishops, at 
least, shall unite in every consecration. The succession there- 
fore does not depend upon a line of single Bishops in. one Dio- 
cese running back to the Apostles—because every Bishop has 
had at least three to ordain him either one of whom had power 
to perpetuate the succession. How rapidly do the securities 
multiply as we go back! Bishop Whittingham had three to 
ordain him; his ordainers had nine; at the third step. there 
were twenty-seven: at the fourth eighty-one: at the fifth two 
hundred and forty-three: and so on increasing in a three fold 
proportion. Now if any one of the entire number to whom 


Bishop W’s. consecration may be traced back had a valid ordi- 


nation, the succession is in him, and he can transmit it to any 
other in whose consecration he may assist. 

‘The securities therefore are incalculably strong, and the 
lain of any duly consecrated bishop to the Apostolic suc- 
cession, is more certain than that of any monarch upon earth 


* 


¥ vr. 


80. 


to his hereditary crown. Lists of the Apostolical succession, 


in descent from the different Apostles, have been carefully 


preserved by Eusebius and other early writers—-and they 


Sl 
eka 
‘eo. ‘ 


have been continued in different lines down to the present 


day. Any reader who desires to consult them, is referred to 
Percival on Apostolical succession, and Chapin’s primitive 
church. Rome may trace its line to St. Peter—the Greeks to 
St. Paul—the Syrians and Nestorians to St. Thomas and the 
American Episcopal church to St. Joun. 

Bishop White, the head of the American line of Paitin was 
consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury We will there- 
fore present a list beginning with St. John, and coming through 
the Episcopate of Lyons, in France or shank and that of Can- 
terbury in England, till it connects with ours in the United 
States of America. 


St. JoHn. 3 

1. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. CANTERBURY. 

Bishops of Lyons. 39 A. D. 596, AUGUSTINE, mis- 
1. Pothinus. 33 sionary to the Anglo Sax- 
2. Ireneus. ons, was consecrated by 
3. Gacharias. St Virgilius, 24th Bishop of 
4. Elias. J i: Arles, assisted by Aitheri- 
5. Faustinus. | des us, 3lst Bishop of Lyons. 
6. Verus. 34.. Lawrence, 1 NOE Be NR GY 8 
7. Julius. 35. Mellitus, < 619. 
8. Ptolemy. 36. Justus, a 624. 
9. Vocius. 37. Honorius, ae 634. 
10. Maximus. 38. Adeodatus, ye 654. 
11. Tetradus. | . 39. Theodore, - gs 688. 
12. Verissimus. 40. Brithwald, a. & 693. 
13. Justus. 41. Tatwine, es RES 
14. Albinus. . 42. Nothelm, “Brees TOD: 
15. Martin. 43. Cuthbert, Rs 742. 
16. Antiochus. 44. Bregwin, MES 759. 
17. Elpidius. _ | 45. Lambert, n 763. 
18. Sicarius. é . | 46. Athelred, 1. “ 793. 
19. Eucherius, 1. 47. Wulfred, : f+ BOS. 
20. Patiens._ . 48. Theogild or Feogild, ‘ 830. 
21. Lupieuug. > -  Consecrated June 5th, and 
22. Rusticus. died Sept. 3rd. 
23. Stephanus. 49. Ceolnoth, Sept, Tl. “830. 
24. Viventiolus. P 50.. Aethelred, 2. “ 871. 
25. Eucherius, 2 a 51. Phlegmund, “ 891. 
26. Lupus. : . 52. Anthelm bs hak 923 
27. Licontius. Adelm, : . 
28. Sacerdos. 53. Wulfelm, ‘ es 928. 
29. Nicetus. 4 54. Odo Severus, ss 941. 
30. Priscus. 55. Dunstan, & 959. 


31. Attherius, A. D. 589.. 56. Althelgar, As: 988. 


8] 

67. Siricus, “ 989.) 90. Wm. Courtney, “ © 1381. 
58. Aluricus or “|. gag 91. Thos, Arundle, at 1396. 
- Alfricus, : 92. Henry Chichely, ‘“ 1414, 
59. Elphege, “1005. | 93. John Stafford, tit, 1443. 
60, Living or 94. Jonn Kemp, ad EA 5D. 
-  Leoning or _ 1013. | 95. Thos. Bourcher, ‘“ 1454. 
Elkskan, 96. John Morton, ‘6 1486. 

61. Agelnoth or Aithelst, “ 1020. 97. Henry Dean, v6 1501. 
62. Edsin or Elsin, vs 1038. 98. Wm. Wareham, ‘“ 1503. 
63. Robert Gemeticensis, “ 1050. | 99. THos. Cranmer, » 1538. 
64. Stigand, —  .° 1052. | 100, Reginald Pole, Pig L555." 
65. Lanfranc, i 1077. | 101. Matthew Parker, ‘ 1559. 
66. Anselm, “ 1093. |.102. Ed. Grindall, Dec. ‘* ° 1573. 
67. Rodulph, “ 1114. | 103. John Whitgift, >“ 1583. 
68. Wm. Corboil, y- 46 1122. | 104. Richard Bancroft, “ +1604. 
69. Theobold, ‘**  °1138. | 105. George Abbott, is 1611. 
70. ‘Thomas a Becket, “ ‘°1162..| 106. Wm. Land, © co SE 1Gaos 
71. Richard, at 1174. | 107. Wm. Juxon, ‘6 1660. 
72. Baldwin Fordensis, “ . 1184. | 108. Gilbert Sheldon, ‘ — 1663. 
73. Reginald Fitz Joceline, | 1191. | 109.. Wm. Sancroft, 66 1677. 
74. Hubert Walten, * 1193. | 110. John Tillotson, 6 1691. 
75. Stephen Langton, “ 1207. | 111. ‘Thos. Tennison, ‘“ 1694 
-76.. Richard Wethersfield, 1229, | 112. Wm. Wake, corey Tee 
77..Edmund, w& =. 1234. 1°113. John Potter, Ot aT wed 7 
78. Boniface, 4 1245, | 114. Thos, Secker, 6s 1738. 
79. Rob. Kilwarby, ©1272. |. 115; Thos, Herrind, bs 1747. 
80. John Peckham, =“ 1278. | 116. Matthew Hutton, “ 1757. 
81. Rob. Winchesly, + 1294. | 117. Frederick Cornwallis, 1768. 
‘82. Walter Regnold, “ — - 1313. | 118. John Moore, ae 1783. 
83. Simon Mepham. ‘« 1328. | 119. from. St. John is Winiam 
#4. John Startford, ts 1333. | Waite of Pennsylvania, consecrated 
85. Thos. Bradwardine, ‘ 1348. | February the 4th, 1787, by John 
86. Simon Islip, iy 1349. | Moore, Archbishop ef Canterbury, 


87. Simon Langham, <‘“ 1366. | assisted by the Archbishop of York, 
88. Wm. Whittlesey, .“‘ 1368. |the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and 
89. Simeon Sudbury, a pees. the Bishop of Peterborough. 


The compilers of the ‘lists from which the above was taken 
have consulted the best authorities, and no more doubt of its 
authenticity can be entertained, than’ of any chronological table 
of historical events, or list of the sovereigns of any country, 
drawn from its’ bincial registers and archives. ‘The dates: at- 
tached to the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury, indi- | 
cate, in several instances, not the time of their consecration but 
of their translation to that see.” Rev. Dr. Hansiaw. 


ie p. 69. The: fojtowrtngs! exttacts will. not. be without initer- 

est to those concerned to investigate the claims of Methodist 
Episcopacy. ' | 

“To all {toy whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, 

od Eas 


#4 


82 


late fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford, Presbyter~of the 
Church of England, sendeth greeting: Whereas many of the 
people in the southern provinces in North America, who desire 
to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and 
discipline of the Church of England, are greatly distressed 
for want of ministers to administer the sacraments of baptism 
and the Lord’s supper according to the usage of the same 
church; and whereas there does not appear to be any other 
way of supplying them with ministers— | 
Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be 
providentially galled at this time to set apart some persons for 
the work of the ministry in America. And therefore, under 
the protection of Almighty God, and with a single eye to -his 
glory, | have this day set apart as a superintendent, by, the 
imposition’ of my hands and prayer, being assisted by other 
ordained ministers, Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a pres- 
byter of the Church of England, and aman whom I judge 
to be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby 
recommend him to all whom it may concern as a fit person 
to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I 
have hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of Sep- 
tember 1784. JOHN WESLEY. 


Mr. Wesley being only a Presbyter, and ‘Thomas Coke being 
also a Presbyter of the Church of England, we may surely 
with reason ask, what additional power or authority could 
Wesley’s imposition of hands ¢onfer on Coke? Might not 
Coke, being a Presbyter, just with the same propriety have 


laid handé on Wesley? If presbyter and bishop, be the same 


order, as is contended, then what use or reason was there Yor 
ordaining Coke? If piesbyat and bishop be not the same, 


then Wesley being no bishop could not confer the episcopal 


office on Coke. 

Under the commission of Wesley as above, Dr. Coke came 
to America and met the Methodist conference at Baltimore. 
In the space of forty-eight hours. he ordained Mr. Asbury dea- 


‘con, presbyter and ‘bishop, and afterwards united with him in 


an address to General Washingianccniiis and Asbury signing 
the address as bishops. 
In what light Mr..Wesley regarded this assumption of the 


83 


title of bishop by his superintendents may be seen from the 
following extract of a letter addressed by him to Mr. Asbury, 
under date of September 20th, 1788. 

“One instance of this, your greatness, has given me great 
concern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be 
ealled bishop? I shudder and start at the very thought. 
For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, pu a fuil end 
to this.” 

Let us now see what estimate Dr. Coke hitnself put upon 


his ordination as a Bishop. In a letter addressed to Bishop 


White of Pennsylvania, dated April 24, 1791, nearly two 
months after the death of Mr. Wesley, an event ‘of which he 
had not then heard, he proposes a reunion of the Methodists 
with the church, and says “I do not think that the generality 
of them, (the Methodist Ministers) perhaps none of them would 
refuse to submit to a re-ordination, if other hindrances were 


removed out of the way.” If Dr. Coke thought that he was 


really invested with power to ordain ministers in the church. 
of God and had so ordained them, how could he for a moment 
tolerate, the idea of a re-ordination 2? In a letter addressed to 
Bishop Seabury of Connecticut, dated May 14, 1791—only 
three weeks after that t6 Bishop White, he is more full and 
explicit. He says, “for five or six years after my union with 
Mr. Wesley, I remained fixed in my attachments to the Church 
of England: but afterwards for many reasons which it would 
be tedious and useless to mention, I changed my sentiments, 
and promoted a separation from it as far as my influence 


- reached. Within these two years I am come back again: 


my love for the Church of England has returned. I think 1 
am attached to it on a ground much more rational, and con- 
sequently much less likely to be shaken than formerly. I have 
many a time run into error; but to be ashamed of confessiig 


my error when convinced. of it, has never been one of my de- 


fects. Therefore when I was fully convinced of my error in 
the steps I took to bring about a separation from the Church of 


England, in Europe, I delivered before a congregation of about 
three thousand people, in our largest chapel in Dublin, on a 
‘Sunday evening, after preaching, an exhortation, which, in fact, 


amounted to a recantation of my error. Sometime afterward, 
I repeated the same in our largest chapels in London, and in 


4 


84. 


several other parts of England and Ireland: and I have reason 
to believe that my proceedings in this respect have given a 
death blow to all the hopes of a separation which may exist 
in the minds of any in those kingdoms. 7 

On the same principles I most cordially wish for a reunion 

of Protestant Episcopal and the Methodist Churches in these 
States. * * * How great, then, would be the strength. of 
our church (will you give me leave to call itso? I mean the 
Protestant Episcopal!) if the two sticks were made one? * * 
* * Now, on a reunion taking place, our ministers both elders 
and femeone would expect to have, and ought to have, the 
same authority they have at present, of administering the 
ordinances according to the respective powers already invested 
in them for.this purpose. f well know that they must submit 
to a re-ordination which I believe might be easily brought 
about if every other hindrance was removed out of the way. 
But the grand objection would arise from-the want of.confi- 
dence which the deacons and wnordained preachers would 
experience.” ' 

‘The Dr’s. plan for removing this objection is seen, in the fol- 
lowing: “ But if the two houses of the Convention (he refers 
to the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church) 
of the clergy would consent to your consecration of Mr. As- 
bury and me as bishops. of the Methodist Society in the. Pro- 
testant Episcopal Church in these United States, (or by any 
other title, if that be not proper,) on the supposition of the re- 
union of the two churches under proper mutual stipulations; 
and engage that the Methodist Society shall have a regular 
supply, on the death of their Bishops, and so, ad perpetwum, 
the grand difficulty in respect to the preachers would be re- 


moved—they would have the same men to confide in whom: 


they have at present, and all other mutual stipulations would — 


soon. be settled.” So. Churchman, June 9, 1843. 


‘We offer but one more extract. In a letter addressed to 
Mr. Wilberforce, he says, * * “if his Royal Highness, the 
Prince Regent and the government should think: ‘proper to ap- 
point me their Bishop in India, I should most cheerfully and 
most gratefully accept of the offer. *“ * * * * In my 
letter to Lord Liverpool I observed that I should, in case of my 


Jai 


85 


appointment to the E'piscopacy of India, return most fully 
and faithfully into the bosom. of the Established Church, and 
do every thing in my power to promote its interests; and 
would submit to all such restrictions in the fulfilment of my 
office, as the Epvenniment and the Bench of Bishops at home 
should think necessary.” —Eid. Rev., No. cxlv. 1840. 

The preceding requires no comment. Conclusions against 
Dr. Coke’s Episcopal authority or character are inevitable and 
irresistible. 


D.’p. 72. The subjoined: extracts from a sermon preached 
by Mr. Wesley, May 4th, 1789, less than two years before his 
death, will show in any fete he regarded. the claim of his 
preachers to administer sacraments. The text is Heb. v. 4. 

“In 1744, all the Methodist preachers had their first confer- 
ence. But none of them dreamed that the being called to 
preach, gave them any right to administer sacraments. And 
when that question was proposed, in what light are we to con- 
sider ourselves? it was answered, as extraordinary messen- 
gers, vaised-up to provoke the ordinary ones to jealousy. In 
order hereto, one of our first rules was given to each preacher, 
you are to do that part of the work which we appoint. But 
what work was this? Did we ever appoint you to administer 
sacraments? to exercise the priestly office? Such a design 
never ehtered into our mind; it was the farthest from our 
thoughts: and if any preacher had taken such a-step, we 
should have looked upon it as a palpable breach of this rule 


- and consequently a recantation of our connexion. 


For supposing (what I utterly deny,) that the receiving you 
as a preacher at the same time gave an authority to administer 
the sacraments, yet it gave you no other authority than to do 
it, or any thing else, where Lappoint. But when did I appoint 
you to do this? No where at all. Therefore by this very rule 
you are excluded from doing it, and in doing it, you renounce 
the very first principle of Methodism, which was wholly and 
solely to preach the gospel. I wish all of you who are vulgarly 
termed Methodists would seriously “consider what has been 
said. And particularly you whom God hath commissioned to 
call sinners to repentance. It does by no means follow from 
hence, that ye are commissioned to baptize or administer the 


86 


Lord’s supper. Ye never dreamed of this, for ten or twenty 
years after ye began to preach. Ye did not then like Korah, 
Dathan and Abiram, “seek the priesthood also.” Ye knew 
“no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called 
of God as was Aaron!” © contain yourselves within your own 
bounds, be content with preaching the Gospel; “do the work 
of Evangelists,” proclaim to all the world the loving kindness 
of God our Saviour; declare to all, “'The kingdom of Heaven 
is at hand: repent ye and believe the Gospel!” I earnestly 
advise you, abide in your place; keep your own station. Ye 
were, fifty years ago, those of you that were then Methodist 
preachers, extraordinary messengers of God, not going in your 
own will, but thrust out, not to supersede, but to provoke to 
jealousy the ordinary messengers. In God’s name, stop there !” 

Alas! this voice of warning and remonstrance was uttered 
in vain. The Methodists have long since, in this country at 
least, completed their schism, and though professing to derive 
ministerial authority from Wesley, and to be but slightly re- 
moved from the doctrine and government of the church, yet 
few others are found to manifest a more determined spirit of 
hostility to the prevalence of her worship, the spread of her 
principles. and the increase of her members. 


